[TUT317]

No one has seen a live dinosaur so we have no reference point for dinosaurs in recent times but there are tales of dragons in antiquity. Could these dragons have been dinosaurs? and if they existed then dinosaurs could have been on the Earth 6000 years ago. Dinosaurs are found in very remote places, could there be any significance in that? There are many questions about what changes the flood would have brought and dinosaurs have to be put in this context. Dating methods have been shown to be inaccurate and the inaccuracy increases as the fossil gets older. Many strange things have been found including dinosaur bones with meat on them and mastidons with a mouth full of grass. What this tells us is the Earth is subject to sudden and catastrophic change about which we know little but the likelihood we have been here for much longer than 6,000 years is very slender indeed. Look at what we have managed to do in 6,000 years and ask yourself where would this have lead if we had been here for millions of years

Some interesting possibilities
There have been many extinction events and we managed to survive them all dispite being stupid and taking a long time to develop
mankind is the most unintelligent creature on the planet
mankind is a superior lifeform that has unique survival abilities
a few hundred migrants from Africa just happened to populate the planet but it took millions of years for the population to grow to this level
the dinosaurs ate all the humans this is why it took so long for the human population to grow
the humans ate all thedinosaurs this is why they are extinct

Hi Paraclete,

Most of these issue were discussed in previous posts.

Are you suggesting that the earth could be 4.5 billion years old but humans and dinosaurs have only been around for about 6,000 years?

Regards

Tut

[paraclete]

Hi Paraclete,

Most of these issue were discussed in previous posts.

Are you suggesting that the earth could be 4.5 billion years old but humans and dinosaurs have only been around for about 6,000 years?

Regards

Tut

I am not concerned with what might have been said previously in this or any other place, I am answering a question.

What I am saying, Tut, is there are two different stories/opinions/theories and a big vacuum in the middle. We have an explanation for having being here six thousand years and a great deal of the evidence fits the narrative. On the other hand certain forms of measurement suggest that the underlying strata of the Earth might have been here a very long time. These facts are not necessarily inconsistent. One also has to examine the logic associated with the information presented and this leads to some inconsistencies which don't support the old Earth, or at least the old human, theory. The most consistent concise explanation we have is Biblical, a little short on detail, but very consistent with many observations and explanations.

We also have some conundrums, things to puzzle over, because they don't quite fit in the ordered view we would all like to have. The more we seek, the more we find that our explanations have to be modified and revised, so therefore, in the absence of concrete evidence I have opted to stay with the Biblical explanation.

[TUT317]

Hello paraclete,

Thanks for the explanation; just curious.

Regards

Tut

[asking]

... certain forms of measurement suggest that the underlying strata of the Earth might have been here a very long time. [this fact and the biblical version] are not necessarily inconsistent.

I would be very interested to have you explain how an explanation that says the Earth is 6000 years old is not mutually exclusive with one that says it is 4.5 billion years old.

One also has to examine the logic associated with the information presented and this leads to some inconsistencies which don't support the old Earth, or at least the old human, theory. The most consistent concise explanation we have is Biblical, a little short on detail, but very consistent with many observations and explanations.

Here I am not sure what you are referring to. The evidence for the Earth's age is quite consistent. There is no disagreement within the scientific community about it. How can the Bible be considered more consistent than that? As for concision, Genesis is certainly not a more concise account of the age of the Earth than a Wikipedia entry on scientific explanation of the same topic. The Bible is much more poetic but not more concise or consistent.

[arcura]

dwashbur, I agree with your friend and that also includes dark energy.
God is present everywhere and everywhen and nothing is impossible for Him.
So He could have created the universe just 6000 0r 7000 years ago, but I think that he did not do so.
I think He created the universe to eventually become what we see of it today billions of years ago.
It's just a matter of belief.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[kowcow44]

You do know Adam and Eve is just a story right? I am very catholic but I was even taught in my classes/studies that it is just a story. Adm and Eve were most likely never on this earth

[arcura]

kowcow44,
It is believed by many theologians that the story of Adam and Eve is a informative poem. The basic story is about a man and woman falling into sin and about how they did that.
Basically that is by disobeying God.
The tree of life and the tree of knowledge are symbolic according to that.
Either way a person wants to believe it there are lessons to be learned by such a story.
Mankind has a sinful nature and that story tells us how we acquired that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[kowcow44]

kowcow44,
It is believed by many theologians that the story of Adam and Eve is a informative poem. The basic story is about a man and woman falling into sin and about how they did that.
Basically that is by disobeying God.
The tree of life and the tree of knowledge are symbolic according to that.
Either way a person wants to believe it there are lessons to be learned by such a story.
Mankind has a sinful nature and that story tells us how we acquired that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Please don't get me wrong I am not trying to say that there is not multiple good messages to be taken away from Adam and Eve and the other stories such as Noah's ark and The Tower of Babel and so on it just seemed to me like the question was being based on a belief that Adam and Eve actually walked this earth at a certain point in time and the dinosaurs could not have existed before then

[arcura]

kowcow44,
I agree that there there were a symbolic Adam and Eve who wlked this planet long after the dinos were dead and gone.
Thanks for your explanation.
Fred

[elscarta]

Dating methods have been shown to be inaccurate and the inaccuracy increases as the fossil gets older.

Could you please provide specific information regarding this as it is not the first time that the idea that dating techniques are inaccurate has come up. Without specific details you are asking us to accept your word that this is true without being able to look at the validity of the claim for ourselves.

[elscarta]

dwashbur, I agree with your friend and that also includes dark energy.
God is present everywhere and everywhen and nothing is impossible for Him.
So He could have created the universe just 6000 0r 7000 years ago, but I think that he did not do so.
I think He created the universe to eventually become what we see of it today billions of years ago.
It's just a matter of belief.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred I disagree that "it's just a matter of belief."

John 17:20-23
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

How can the world know that God sent Jesus and loves all as He loves Jesus if we argue and fight amongst ourselves regarding things like how the universe was created?

Even if we respectfully agree to disagree, where is the complete unity that Jesus prayed for?

[arcura]

elscarta, You have made a very good point.
Thanks,
Fred

[asking]

How can the world know that God sent Jesus and loves all as He loves Jesus if we argue and fight amongst ourselves regarding things like how the universe was created?

I like this.

Also, it seems odd to say that something is "just" a matter of belief. As an atheist, I think that belief is not a basis for deciding how the world was made. Though I believe other things--for example, that it is wrong to be unkind to children. But it seems to me that for someone who believes in God, belief is everything. Have I misunderstood?

[arcura]

asking,
Yes, I do believe that belief is everything, but maybe not in the way you think of it.
I believe that you can not do anything without some form of belief.
As an example...
If you believe you can feed yourself then you can.
There is an old saying that fits this.
"If you believe you can or if your believe you can not either way you are right."
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[TUT317]

I like this.

Also, it seems odd to say that something is "just" a matter of belief. As an atheist, I think that belief is not a basis for deciding how the world was made. Though I believe other things--for example, that it is wrong to be unkind to children. But it seems to me that for someone who believes in God, belief is everything. Have I misunderstood?

Hello Asking,

Interesting problem. I could be the case what we 'discover' morality differently to the way we 'discover' scientific facts. Most people would agree that we need to discover morality in an objective way, it is just that some want to say we need to discover these things in a scientific way. In other words, science and morality exist independently of us, yet they are discoverable in a similar way.

A moralist realist would say that we can discover objective facts about morality by thinking about our actions and the actions of others. There seems to be a problem here. How can something that arises out of the mind have the same type of objectivity as scientific objectivity?

Elscarta, highlighted this problem when he says:" How can the world know that God sent Jesus and loves all as He loves Jesus if we argue and fight amongst ourselves, regarding things like how the universe was created"

We can discover things scientifically and these things may not sit comfortably with the beliefs of some. On the other hand, some moral beliefs don't sit comfortably with a scientific explanation.

No answers, just observations.


Regards

Tut

[asking]

Hi Tut,
We think differently. But there are some commonalities.

I think that, to a degree, morality is a rational process. It is a bad idea to steal in part because if I steal from my neighbor, he will eventually feel justified in stealing from me. If instead all of us follow certain social rules, everyone benefits--no one gets killed or robbed.

At the same time, it's clear that some people benefit by breaking those rules. So they can justify their behavior as rational. For example, if they expect not to get caught or not be punished.

But I would still say it is wrong to steal, and that's a strong, not very rational belief. Some animal species steal from one another and others don't, so I think whether a species has those inclinations depends on how they evolved. For example, birds that steal food from other animals are nearly all large birds, with large brains, who live in open habitat--like gulls at the beach--and not so different from another species I know. :)

So I think that science can offer insights into morality. But how I feel about morality is not scientific or rational. It makes me angry when the gull at the beach steals my sandwich!

[arcura]

TUT317,
I agree with your way of thinking on this.
I also think that God DOES give us the ability to discover morality in many ways.
I do not believe that animals like birds, bears, and lions can know what morality is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[elscarta]

We can discover things scientifically and these things may not sit comfortably with the beliefs of some.

There are three ways in which people respond to the situation where science discovers something that does not sit comfortably with their beliefs:

1. Hold on to their beliefs and reject the scientific discovery.

2. Assimilate the new scientific discovery into their beliefs.

3. Forgo their beliefs in favour of the scientific discovery.

Creationists' default position is #1. (Actually this is their only position!).
In my many dealings with creationists I have realised that there are a number of reasons for this.

Firstly, there is a fundamental flaw in their logical process which leads them to outrightly rejecting anything that contradicts their beliefs.

Below is their argument paraphrased.

i. Scripture is the Word of God -> Scripture is Truth
ii. The Universe is the Work of God -> The Universe is Truth
iii. Science is man's attempt to understand the Universe and since it is based on imperfect man it can be flawed.
iv. Therefore any science that agrees with Scripture is good science and
v. Any science that disagrees with Scripture is bad science.

Now the flaw is not in any of these statements (I agree with the logic to this point) but in their equating their beliefs with Scripture!

The missing statement which must be added to the above is:

vi. Theology is man's attempt to understand Scripture and since it is based on imperfect man it can be flawed.

Good science does not contradict Scripture but it certainly can contradict bad theology!


Secondly, they accept atheists' arguments that if there is no need for God then God does not exist and so reject anything that appears to lessen the need for a God.

God's existence does NOT depend on whether there is a need for Him to exist or not, or even whether anyone believes in Him or not! Nothing man says, does or believes in any way changes the reality of God's existence/non existence!

Thirdly, they accept the logic of atheists' proofs of God's non existence and then argue the contrapositive instead of realising that the logic is false

Atheists' argument:-
If "__________is true" then "God does not exist".

Creationists' argument (contrapositive):-
"God exists", therefore "_________ is not true".

Instead of arguing:-
"God does not exist" does not logically follow from "_________ being true."


Fourthly, they seem to prefer supernatural explanations over natural explanations, forgetting that God is as much the God of the natural as He is of the supernatural.

[dwashbur]

There are three ways in which people respond to the situation where science discovers something that does not sit comfortably with their beliefs:

1. Hold on to their beliefs and reject the scientific discovery.

2. Assimilate the new scientific discovery into their beliefs.

3. Forgo their beliefs in favour of the scientific discovery.
[snip]

Agreed. In my case, I knew 1 wouldn't work. 3 wasn't an acceptable option for reasons I'll go into in a moment. Hence, I wound up at 2. Once I realized the poetic nature of Genesis 1, I had no problem seeing these "days" as a kind of creative "act," pushing things along the way God wanted them to go.

Many years ago I came close to losing my faith altogether, for reasons that aren't relevant here. I had to stop and reexamine everything with a fresh perspective, and I realized that it's not that important to know WHAT I believe; it's even more important, perhaps most important, to know WHY. That's why I'm on pretty solid ground now; I managed to sort out what's most important to believe, and why I believe it. I narrowed it down to two things: God exists, and Jesus rose from the dead. The former is pretty much a requirement regardless of what philosophical or scientific system one holds, because no matter how far back one presses cosmology, at some point they're going to end up with Aristotle's Uncaused Cause. Sooner or later, we have to hit that point. I decided to choose sooner and get it over with. The latter is a matter of historical investigation. Guided largely by my old friend Gary Habermas, I learned that there are certain facts surrounding the event that almost everyone agrees on, as well as a limited number of explanations for that body of facts. When we take the facts all together, only one answer explains all of them: it really happened.

Hence, an old universe doesn't give me any problem at all. As I've mentioned before, I tried to hold on to the young universe and flood geology and all that, until I got into astronomy. When I realized that I was seeing the Andromeda Galaxy as it actually was 2.5 million years ago, that was the final straw. And none of the explanations I've heard, including that absurd Lisle talk that somebody posted here, has changed my mind. If anything, that talk showed me how far some people will go to try and defend bad exegesis.

Now, Dr. Lisle did mention one thing that makes me curious, and I'd be interested in the view of the scientists and anyone else who have been participating in this discussion. He said, though he didn't give a reference, that astronomers have now reported that the observable universe, the part we can see, measures roughly 170 billion light years across. That is, we can see approximately 85 billion light years in one direction and the same in the other direction. (I'm rounding because I don't recall the exact numbers he cited.) His question: how can that be if the universe is only 15 billion years old? How can we see things 85 billion light-years away if they've only been there for 15 billion years?

It's a good question, unless he (and I) grossly misunderstood something. What do you folks think?

[ebaines]

Now, Dr. Lisle did mention one thing that makes me curious, and I'd be interested in the view of the scientists and anyone else who have been participating in this discussion. He said, though he didn't give a reference, that astronomers have now reported that the observable universe, the part we can see, measures roughly 170 billion light years across. That is, we can see approximately 85 billion light years in one direction and the same in the other direction. (I'm rounding because I don't recall the exact numbers he cited.) His question: how can that be if the universe is only 15 billion years old? How can we see things 85 billion light-years away if they've only been there for 15 billion years?

It's a good question, unless he (and I) grossly misunderstood something. What do you folks think?

The observable universe is around 13.7 Billion Light Years in any direction from earth. This means we can "see" galaxies and other things that are as far away as 13.7 billion LY. That's what we can see. But the universe may in fact today be much larger than that - 156 Billion LY is one estimate. How can this be? It's because space itself expands, so that if two objects were one LY apart as measured back shortly after the Big Bang they would now be much further apart than that. So when we see an object that today we calculate sent light toward us 13.7 billion years ago, that object today may be as far as 157 bilion light years. The thing to remember is that we aren't actually seeing these objects as they are today, but rather as they were 13.7 billion years ago.

Here's an article that talk about this effect:
SPACE.com -- Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide!

I wonder - when Dr Lisle pulls writes this stuff is it because he is too anxious to talk about things he hasn't bothered to truly understand, or is he purposely trying to mislead? It must be one or the other.