YEC and dinosaurs

[rogero]

Roland, from the tone of your post, I wonder if you really do know what you believe. You have so many caveats in your post you can't know what you believe. On the other hand I, with the apostle, Paul know in whom have believed. I have faith in the the Bible as the word of God and that what it says is true. I believe there was a WORLD WIDE flood that wiped out every land animal. Others may doubt the word of God, but not me. They may say it is a fable and folklore, but I believe it is true. There are stories of the flood in Babylonian folklore but those stories are so mixed up with gods warring itis unbeleivable. Jesus spoke of Noah and the flood as fact. Peter speaks of scoffers that walk after their own lust, and are willingly ignorant, meaning that they don't want to know,about the flood. But, Peter says, the earth will melt with great heat and the works in the earth will be burned up.

Lion,

It's wonderful that you have such deep faith, but the geological evidence does not support a global flood. Glennn Morton has provided you links containing copious counterexamples.

How, therefore, do you reconcile your belief in a global flood with empirical evidence?

God's Peace,

Roger

P.S. As a curious yet relevant point, what is your definition of the biblical notion of "kind" in view of the current knowledge of taxonomy, genetics, etc.?

Remember, as a Genesis Flood literalist, you will have to figure out how to include all these "kinds" on that gopherwood ark.

[wattsr1]

Roland, from the tone of your post, I wonder if you really do know what you believe. You have so many caveats in your post you can't know what you believe. On the other hand I, with the apostle, Paul know in whom have believed. I have faith in the the Bible as the word of God and that what it says is true. I believe there was a WORLD WIDE flood that wiped out every land animal. Others may doubt the word of God, but not me. They may say it is a fable and folklore, but I believe it is true. There are stories of the flood in Babylonian folklore but those stories are so mixed up with gods warring itis unbeleivable. Jesus spoke of Noah and the flood as fact. Peter speaks of scoffers that walk after their own lust, and are willingly ignorant, meaning that they don't want to know,about the flood. But, Peter says, the earth will melt with great heat and the works in the earth will be burned up.

Gidday Lion,

Thanks for your response.

Your main objection to my post appears to be that I have “so many caveats in [my] post that [I] can’t know what [I] believe.”

Could you please expand on this and point out those caveats and why you think they indicate or show that it is hard/impossible for me to “know what [I] believe”?

Regards, Roland

[Snarf]

I appreciate Silas’s comment about how to get a website into an argument. That’s how to do it. That aside, I don’t appreciate arguments about origins being called lies.

The problem with origins is that nobody was there to see what happened. We have theories, but we don’t really know for sure what happened unless someone with some authority can tell what actually happened.

In the case of the flood, we have an eyewitness who was there and kept a log of what he saw. The only problem with that is that people don’t want to believe the written record. They dismiss his record as myth and folklore. They even say Noah he never existed. Sorry, he existed, and his grave has been found. Call me a liar if you want to, but I have a letter from the man who found his grave.

The problem with the story of the flood is not with the story. It is that there are two competing beliefs, the story in Genesis that God created the earth, and the belief in evolution, that things just evolved.

A couple of side notes: The reason the dinosaur and wooly mammoth bones appear fresh and not fossilized is because the climate in the arctic just isn’t conducive to fossilizing. The other is that I have an explanation for the frozen wooly mammoths.

Lion,

Nobody was around when you typed in your name "Lion" for the first time, except for you and anyone else who may have been watching. However, I have the preconcieved notion that you are much more fond of mice than lions.
So, I refuse to believe that you typed in your name as Lion, and instead you called yourself Stuart Little.

Without using forensic evidence, can you prove to me that you typed in "Lion?" Going by your logic that you can't prove something that happened in the past, and it's really going by preconcieved notions, then clearly my preconcieved notion is just as valid as your claim to naming yourself 'Lion.'

[Lion]

Now, Now snarf. You know very well how we picked our names and the process we went through, so let’s not get into that silly routine.

There are two competing stories about origins. I misspoke when I said nobody was there when the world began. I should have said that according to the evolutionary theory, nobody was there when it all began. On the other hand God was there, and He told his created humans all about it. That’s the difference.

So bring on your proof for evolution. That’s a challenge.

[HRG_new]

Now, Now snarf. You know very well how we picked our names and the process we went through, so let’s not get into that silly routine.

There are two competing stories about origins.

Only two ? There are the scientific results about origins on one side, and the Christian, the Hindu, the Shinto, the Norse, the Greek, the Mayan etc. stories on the other side. Must be at least 50 stories.

I misspoke when I said nobody was there when the world began. I should have said that according to the evolutionary theory, nobody was there when it all began. On the other hand God was there, and He told his created humans all about it. That’s the difference.

Where you there to check that your God really was there ?

[Lion]

I'll agree that there are all kinds of stories. Some of them are just that, stories. It depends on the reliability of the story teller. Now I know there are people who believe the story Darwin told, and they think it is a proven fact.

Truthfully, I'd rather believe the Bible than Darwin's THEORY any day. Nobody can PROVE creation and nobody can PROVE Darwin was right. Have you any proof? I'm open to PROOF, not theory.

[Cyrus Johnson]

I'll agree that there are all kinds of stories. Some of them are just that, stories. It depends on the reliability of the story teller. Now I know there are people who believe the story Darwin told, and they think it is a proven fact.

It's as "proven" as anything gets in science.

Truthfully, I'd rather believe the Bible than Darwin's THEORY any day.

What makes you think they must be in opposition?

Nobody can PROVE creation and nobody can PROVE Darwin was right. Have you any proof? I'm open to PROOF, not theory.

Then perhaps science is not your forte.

If you want a proof and are closed to theories, then stick with math.

Science can only offer you more theories.

[Lion]

If you observe some effect, and you see it again, you can form a theory that A caused B to happen. Test it again. If A causes B every time you have proven the theory. Take the laws of planetary motion. We know that eclipses occur on time, to the second. That is absoute proof of the THEORY of universal gravitation. But Darwin's theory of acquired traits carried, as the change from one kind of animal to a different kind has never been shown. There are NO intergrades no half this and half that. Man has always been man and monkey always monkey.

This is not to be confused with variation within a KIND. Cats are always cats. There are many varieties of cats, but we can always know it is a cat.

[Soundsurfr]

Darwin's theory of acquired traits carried, as the change from one kind of animal to a different kind has never been shown. There are NO intergrades no half this and half that.

You're wrong on this, Lion. You need to upgrade your facts.

[Lion]

OK show me an intergrade, fossil or live., you will make history as the first man to discover one. I havent a milllion dollares but there are folks that would pay that much for one.

[bhukkadakota]

Wouldnt the homo erectus be an example? As its between homo sapians and the australopithecus afarensis?

[Soundsurfr]

OK show me an intergrade, fossil or live., you will make history as the first man to discover one. I havent a milllion dollares but there are folks that would pay that much for one.

Well, others have already made that history, so I wouldn't be the first, nor would I get a million dollars for it. If you're really interested in seeing the transitions among fossil species along a given evolutionary line, you might try going to a natural history museum or similar website and viewing the trilobite lines.

[Pantheist_Oracl]

Wouldnt the homo erectus be an example? As its between homo sapians and the australopithecus afarensis?

Excellent! Homo erectus/ergaster (I prefer to include both the Eurasian form- classic erectus- and the African form- sometimes called ergaster- into a single species of erectus), is transitional between humanity and earlier forms (although the precise lineage is debated). Homo erectus displays compelling morphological features not seen in modern sapiens, including the shape of the cranium (more elongated; widest point further down), the supraorbital torus (browridge), etc.

Also check out Homo habilis, ancestor of erectus: tool kits simpler and morphology less like us.

And of course, the earlier australopithecines and the newly discovered Kenyanthropus platyops.

From what I understand there has been quite a bit of debate about the precise lineage connecting genus Homo with Australopithecus, particularly concerning the point of divergence between the two. Was it after anamensis? afarensis? africanus? What about Ardipithecus ramidus?

Anyway...

Here are some links that may help and relate to the subject matter:
http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthr.../Herectus.html and
http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthr...bergensis.html and others on site

also try: www.modernhumanorigins.com

[Pantheist_Oracl]

The problem is that there are no less than 4 known versions of this particular Flood legend - Hebrew, Sumerian, Babylonian and Greek with no objective reason to consider any of them as being the original.

(edited to correct a formatting error)

Not to mention the somewhat similar North Indian tradition of Manu. Myths are wonderful stories but poor "scientific evidences."

[shunyadragon]

Your comment illustrates the fact that three people viewing the same accident can come away with six or more different versions of what happened. It all depends on what your preconcieved notions are regarding the events in question. I happen to believe the Bible narrative while you choose to believe something else and neither of us can hope to persuade the other of the correctness of us our view. All a person can do is present his view and let the he reader decide which view is correct.

That is not all a person can do. When an accident happens it is true that six different people may have different stories, but the authorities who study car accidents usually figure out what happened using science, and the testimony of the observers is than considered and the resulting evidince is used establish what happened.

This is what happens with science. Those who study the evidence usually agree as to what happened. In this case 99%+ of all scientists related to earth history and life history agree on a ancient earth, evolution and no flood.

Arguing from partial evidence like mamoths frozen in the arctic or local catastrophic events to present a flood genesis model does not work well. It is best to take the fifth and the fideist view and say in happened irregardless of what the evidence shows.

One comment that you made concerning mammoth and dinosaur bones found together is not true. There is no place on earth where animals, plants, insects or other life forms of distinctly different ages are found in the same formation.