Atheist arguments, viewed differently

Wait, wait, wait. Why would that have to be? IF a person believes that man and dinosaurs lived together (yes, they were neighbors, borrowing cups of sugar and wrenches and lawnmowers from each other all the time), then why would that person have to believe as you said?

Dinosaurs are (were) giant reptiles, yes? Reptiles are scaly (slimy) animals, yes?

So to believe that dinosaurs and man were rubbing elbows over the picket fence and existed at the same time, a person would have to believe:

A) that God created the earth and all things on it in literally SIX 24-hour days
B) that God created animals before men
C) that cups of sugar and lawnmowers were exchanged- ahh, yeah ok, that part's just making me laugh.

My point is, it doesn't have to get complicated, it doesn't have to be difficult for a person who believes this way to explain it: Dinosaurs were animals. God created them before men. Unless the dinosaurs were wiped out in a matter of hours, then man and dinosaurs co-existed.

Anyway, that's what I believe personally, because it makes perfect sense to me.

Then how did all those dinosaurs species die yet humans remained?

God cleansed the earth with a great flood because he was sorry he'd ever created us. Maybe he was sorry he'd created dinosaurs as well.

I admit openly that I haven't got a better answer than that, and that it's what I believe because I haven't found anything else that makes more sense to me.

science isn't an exact science...much of science requires faith....

I suggest you search the AIG website for all of these. AnswersinGenesis.org.
It does not take much research to discover exactly what I am speaking of and I have witnessed many of these myself. Cederville University in Ohio has done the studies on the 25 frozen species.

You also should have a look at the RATE studies done on diamond and coal samples within the past 5 years as every one of the samples yielded radioactive carbon. For the diamond samples in particular this is quite significant as diamonds simply cannot be contaminated. The world's best radio metric dating labs did the analysis as blind samples as they should should have been.

Why are you so eager to agree with the anti-Creator humanists? Do you realize how many excellent scientists believe in Biblical creation? Many are discriminated against as documented by the movie Expelled. I have an acquintance who is a leading genetic researcher at one of worlds leading universities who has publishing many world leading papers on genetics and molecular biology. He is a Biblical Creationist but must hide it for now because he would be fired if he let others know his stand. That is discrimination but that is a fact in our world today controlled by the anti-Creator, anti-God progressives. Heck they used to debate biblical creationist like PHD scientist Duane Gish. However, the debates were so overwhelmingly favorable to the Biblical Creationists that these guys simply will not engage. Anytime, anywhere Dr. Jonathan Sarfati can take any of the evilutionistary preachers toe to toe. In fact it helps get the hidden message out there. Obviously you have no idea but so many others are in the same boat. The fact is the Bible is truth and the EXPIRED WORD of God given to men and the first 5 books given to Moses on the mountain where he spent 40 days with God. There is so much science to discover from many great Biblical creationists. Are you aware that physicist Russell Humphreys (who has amazed the science world with his accurate predictions of the magnetic field strenghs of planets and planetary moons that have been verified by deep space satellittes now) has a book and Video sharing the timeclock metrics that show a young earth and that over 90% of those metrics show a very young earth? Please get that video or book. Again, open yourself to discover and listen at least.

They became extinct. Are you aware of how many animal have become extinct?

They could have been hunted, diseased, like so many other animals.
We have many animals today ready to become extinct and several have during my lifetime. This is no secret or surprise.

But for the evolutionists the question is why do so many creatures that have lived for over 500 million appear alive exactly as their fossil forms?

Check out living fossils and you will see how inaccurate evolutionists are stating that an animal such as a coelancath. Evolutionists actually taught that this was an intermediate fish that had legs that could walk. It is found in layers 70 million of year old. Then off the coast of South Africa fisherman caught a living specimen. These have been studied and the special fins are in no way legs and they do not walk on them. But evolutionists claimed they did AS FACT. So you see the facts are not what they seem.

below is one site there are many other sources

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions

If you are willing to learn the best thing for me is to point you to 2 sites that can help you.
1. Creation Ministries International - BioChemist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati has an excellent DVD on the impossibility of abiogenesis. I waste my time trying to do this here. After you watch the video I will speak with you. You can also get this book. Biologist Dr. Gary Parker has an easy book, Creation Facts of Life that is easy to read and very discriptive. Gary was an evolutionists who actually authored biology texts then converted to Christianity and over a few year became a Biblical Creationist. He has videos and books as well.

2. Answers in Genesis - Ken Ham. Dr Gloria Purdom is a biologist from Ohip State U has some great stuff for you to read.

The answers are there for you if you desire to listen.

There are many references for you but those sites will help you best.

Again Facts are Facts, it is the interpretation of the facts that differ.
For example, RadioActive found in frozen dinosaur bones.
1. Evolutionist Interpretation - the samples must be contaminated or the creation scientist is lying
2. Biblical creation interpretation - the samples show the maximum age of the creatures less than 50,000 years.

Radio metric dating methods like Dude says are highly unreliable and I gave examples and text books for you on this subject. However, when radio active carbon 14 is found in every single diamond sampled from multiple sites all over the world a maximum age of 50,000 is obvious.

Your "decades of facts" are more like "decades of interpretations involving well told stories". Provide any of these here and we can discuss it and I will show you what I mean. Bottom line is Biblical evidence that the Bible is true and from God is overwhelming. It is light and life to all who open their hearts to seek God. The problem is men do not open their hearts to seek God the Creator. They prefer listening to the prevailing human philosophys that are fallable men and ever change. For example, many astronomers have now been shaken about the big bang. Are you aware of this?

I can't believe I didn't think of that when I tried to answer. LOL thanks!

So you believe that Genesis 1 is literal, and Genesis 2, where animals are created AFTER man, is wrong? Why do you think Genesis 2 is wrong? Do you think it's a myth, or a mistake, or what?

See, taking either one of them as literal doesn't make any sense to me. Even before I had ever heard of evolution, or had any idea what scientists said, I knew Genesis was never intended to be taken literally. It's obviously written as a myth, a story to explain the origin of Humans. As a myth, it is very good. It has its basis in truth, as all myth must, but the specifics are not to be taken literally. The TRUTH of the Genesis story is that God created everything. Our God (assuming you worship the same God as is described in the Jewish Bible) isn't just a really cool supernatural being who can do powerful things, the way other gods who were worshiped at that time were. Those gods may have been in existence since the beginning of time, or before, but they weren't seen as The Creator. The writers of Genesis are saying all those other gods are mere shadows of ours. Ours created all those other gods.

And what's more, our God CARES about us. He cares, because he created us, and everything around us. He loves us as if we were his own children, because we are his own children. This is unlike anything else worshiped at the time, and the Hebrews knew it. That is why God inspired them to write these myths, so that they would last throughout time.

A literal understanding of Genesis would imply that the first human's name was "The Man." What kind of name is that? Clearly, in naming him Adam, the writer was making it clear to all readers that this is a myth. It's as obvious as if you say, "Once upon a time...." Genesis 1, with its stories of what was created each day, ending with the refrain, "And it was evening, and it was morning, the ___ day." So obviously not intended to be taken literally. Genesis 2, likewise, was a myth, but it was written by a different set of Hebrews. It was written by the Hebrews who had settled in the Northern Kingdom (Israel), while Genesis 1 was written by the Hebrews of the Southern Kingdom (Judah). Two totally different stories, that contradict each other in specifics, but the Hebrews knew they were BOTH important, so they kept them both, side by side.

Honestly, people, when you insist that it's literal, not only do you have to twist yourself into all sorts of knots to make it fit with itself (let alone reality), you MISS SO MUCH BEAUTY of the stories as they are written.

I just don't understand.

Science is science. If you practice it exactly, it is an exact science.

If it requires faith, it is not pure science.

There are many fields considered "pseudo-science." Psychology is one example, where we really can't test the theories using science, because it's unethical to do so, so the best we can do is guess based on past evidence, rather than predict future evidence that will either confirm or negate the theory.

Economics is another example of something that really isn't an absolute science. There are all sorts of things we can predict, with certainty. If interest rates are x%, we know exactly how much money we will have in 2 years. But as soon as we try to predict human behavior based on those mathematical models, we run into too many variables.

Biology, however, is an exact science. When predictions are made about the future based on evolution, they continue to confirm the theory, making it more precise, more correct, every time.

I would like one creationist to make a valid prediction about biology based on their "science".

No, humans did not cause the mass extinction of dinosaurs. If it's true, then why didn't they use the other dinosaur remains for tools, weapons, or other things like that? If you were an archeologist, you would understand how ridiculous this is.

Where in Genesis 2 are animals created? Animals and man were created the 5th and 6th days. Unless I'm just too tired and half blind right now and totally missing your point, which is entirely possible.

I shall do so, thank you.

Can you provide a link to that? Or is it something I'll find on AIG?

I agree with truth. I don't much care who else is in that camp. 2+2=4, and even if Hitler liked that 2+2=4, that doesn't make it any less true, or make me want to say that 2+2 should =5 so we don't have to be like Hitler.

I'm sorry that many people who accept truth are atheists. I have tried to talk with them about God, and why it's so awesome to praise the God who created us. To date, I have not convinced any non-believer to become a believer, but I have converted many atheists to agnosticism, recognizing that they cannot prove the non-existence of God any better than I can prove His existence.

Name one scientist who is accepted in his field, lauded as being "excellent," who believes in Biblical creation. Just one.

It's not discrimination.

I have an acquaintance who is convinced that 2+2=5. He is currently a math professor at Stanford University, but he has to hide that he believes that 2+2=5, because if he admitted it, he would be fired, and would not be allowed to teach any more.

Is that discrimination? To fire someone because they can't do their job? I don't think so.

LOL, love that revisionist history you've got. No, that's not what happened. "Dr" Gish had her liver handed to her on a plate. Of course, for someone who is so adept at denying truth, it's easy for the spinners to say that isn't what happened, that she really won, but the scientists were so embarrassed by it they had to cover it up. If you believe that 2+2=5, you'd believe anything.

I won't comment on the rest until I have a chance to look at your website.

According to Genesis 2, animals are created after man. God created The Man, and then went about to find a suitable companion for him. He created animals, and brought each one to The Man. The Man liked each one, but none of them was a suitable companion. So God made The Man to fall asleep, and out of his side (some translations: rib) created another creature, and named her The Woman. The Woman was the perfect helpmeet for The Man.

Of course, creationists will say that he had already created all the other animals, and then re-created them there for Adam. But such an interpretation doesn't allow the text to speak for itself. It is isogesis, putting stuff into the text that just isn't there. The story as it stands doesn't need any of that. Unless you want to take it literally. If you want to take it literally, you have to write around it, mess with it, change God's Word to fit reality.

Isn't it easier to say, "This is a beautiful parable," to accept the lesson it teaches, and let it stand? Why must we fight so with Truth? We are still Is-ra-el, the one who fights God.

there is a theory, I haven't read much of it. But in the theory apparently God created dinosaurs on the 6th day. this is the best link to it I have found...
Dinosaur - Conservapedia
Personally I don't think the days in Genisis were literal days. I think they were a word used to describe a period of time that may have actually been thousands, even millions of years.
Sometimes we forget that although the bible is Gods words, men wrote it down. They can make mistakes.

Christian origins models that compete with reductive materialism:

1. Reasons to Believe (old earth progressive creationism): Reasons To Believe: Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Kenneth Samples, David Rogstad, Jeff Zweerink
2. Answers in Genesis (young earth creationism): Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics
3. Biologos (theistic evolution): The BioLogos Forum

The Theory of evolution is incorrect. If evolution were correct there would be in-between skeletons in the fossil record. There are none. There are no skeletons of any animals in the middle of "evolving" into something else. Odd isn't it, if it were fact? There are only wrong guesses saying one animal changed into another animal because they have similarities.

Also if Genesis were just to be taken as a myth there would be no genealogy of Adam. It would have started with Abraham or Noah. But there is indeed a genealogy of Adam. This genealogy is not a myth. I haven't read any part of the bible where it referenced any other part of the bible as a myth. The bible is the word of God and Truth.

I wouldn't even press that it's a mistake. If the original authors were not intending to write history, but were instead writing down stories, parables, they were not "mistaken." The only people who are mistaken are the ones who believe that those stories are supposed to be taken literally.

God doesn't make mistakes. I believe the Bible is true, when, AND ONLY WHEN, it is correctly interpreted. Problem is, so few humans interpret it correctly. I'm sure I'm not right 100% of the time, and I've probably been studying it longer than most people on this forum.