Gap Theory

[HankD]

In regards to the speed of light change, no such theories have passed peer review. Regarding the link above, the only suggestion that is specific in scope is one person who suggests that the speed of light might have been faster at the start of the big bang, but that faster speed would have lasted for only moments before returning to the current speed. There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests a change in C would have resulted in a big bang several thousand years in the past, and there has been no observations of the speed of light changing in a control group (creationists regularly argue that if it can't be observed in a control group, it's not science).

Was it not Hawkins himself who said that the current laws of physics were not in existence at the Big Bang, neither can the laws of "creation" which acted upon the Singularity be reproduced in the contemporary universe.

Therefore a control group is impossible.

HankD

 

[Johnv]

Come on, you believe everyone's footprint looks exactly alike?

It's not a matter of whether peoples' footprints look alike, it's a matter of whether this qualifies as a human footprint at all. It doesn't.

It is not creationists who have a long history of fraud, it is evolutionists.

And that makes it okay for Creationists to engage in fraud, how?

 

[Winman]

And that makes it okay for Creationists to engage in fraud, how?

No, fraud is wrong. What I am saying is that I believe that to be a real human footprint. And there have been several finds, not one.

Look, if the account in Genesis is true, then dinosaurs lived with man.

And there have been several recent finds of dinosaurs with soft tissues. This would be impossible if dinosaurs went extinct 65-70 million years ago as evolutionists claim. There have even been reports of extracting DNA which is very fragile. It would be shocking if DNA could survive even a few thousand years, much less many millions.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm

But the team was surprised by what actually happened when they removed the minerals from the T. rex femur fragment. The removal process left behind stretchy bone matrix material that, when examined microscopically, seemed to show blood vessels, osteocytes, or bone building cells, and other recognizable organic features.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090707203728.htm

If you wish to believe that soft tissues could survive for many millions of years, that is your choice.

 

[preachinjesus]

One major issue in the whole thing was the nature of the antedilluvian world that existed for almost 2000 years prior to the Great Flood would have allowed for tremendous numbers of species that we don't have today.

Also, think about what would have happened to anything below the six miles of water. That kind of pressure would have impacted the world greatly imho.

All that to reiterate, the Bible isn't a science book about the details of Creation but it is deeply vested in glorifying the Creator!

 

[Winman]

One major issue in the whole thing was the nature of the antedilluvian world that existed for almost 2000 years prior to the Great Flood would have allowed for tremendous numbers of species that we don't have today.

Also, think about what would have happened to anything below the six miles of water. That kind of pressure would have impacted the world greatly imho.

All that to reiterate, the Bible isn't a science book about the details of Creation but it is deeply vested in glorifying the Creator!

Yes, observation argues against evolution but for creation. We have all seen the evolutionist's tree where life begins with single celled organisims and then grows and branches into many different life forms.

By the way, did you know there are no two celled organisms?

But real observation shows exactly the opposite. We see that many more life forms lived in the past. The numbers of life forms is shrinking not growing. Extinction is a fact and has been observed for thousands of years.

 

[HankD]

If you wish to believe that soft tissues could survive for many millions of years, that is your choice.

What? You didn't see Jurassic Park?

HankD

 

[Johnv]

No, fraud is wrong. What I am saying is that I believe that to be a real human footprint. And there have been several finds, not one.

No, there haven't. These and the Paluxy tracks are the only claims, and neither stands up to objective scrutiny.

Look, if the account in Genesis is true, then dinosaurs lived with man.

I agree. That doesn't change the objective fact that no human footprints alongside dinosaurs have ever been found.

And there have been several recent finds of dinosaurs with soft tissues.

Actually not. Upon scrutiny, said soft tissues are usually found to be biofilm or similar phenomena.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is no archeological evidence that shows dinosaurs and man co-existing.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

There is no archeological evidence that shows dinosaurs and man co-existing.

I think its a matter of how one interprets the evidence.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/human-and-dino-fossils-together

That article is insightful. However, if we begin with the Bible then all the beasts of the earth were created on the 6th day with man. So, they must have existed together.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think its a matter of how one interprets the evidence.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/human-and-dino-fossils-together

That article is insightful. However, if we begin with the Bible then all the beasts of the earth were created on the 6th day with man. So, they must have existed together.

I read the article and it was interesting yet it still has difficulties with its own questions

Yet that still does not explain why there are no fossilized humans in Flood sediments

The article attempts to explain by defining blot out and suggesting that there is a possiblity that at some point a fossel will be found. As yet nothing exist. Finally the article ends with

If human and dinosaur bones are ever found in the same layers, it would be a fascinating find to both creationists and evolutionists

Yes this would be true. But there is nothing else. Also most bible scholars and Evolutionist a like believe in a Pangea yet a rapid separation of land masses into continental drifts would seem to be given more treatment then in the bible account here:

One was named Peleg, [l] because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.

Which means that this is not the intent of the passage because rappid continental drift would cause all sorts of calamities such as earthquakes, floods, etc... So it must mean the earth divided up by tribes of people but not a reflection of continental drift. Why no mention of it if Genesis creation account is to be taken literally?

 

[Johnv]

We should be clear here. When it is noted that there is no archeological evidence that shows dinosaurs and man co-existing, that neither refutes a 6 day creation view, nor does it bolster it. I mention this because there are a few here that take the position of "if you don't believe human and dinosaurs exist in the same place, then you don't believe in the bible". That's simply untrue.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

We should be clear here. When it is noted that there is no archeological evidence that shows dinosaurs and man co-existing, that neither refutes a 6 day creation view, nor does it bolster it. I mention this because there are a few here that take the position of "if you don't believe human and dinosaurs exist in the same place, then you don't believe in the bible". That's simply untrue.

Yes your point is taken. And one of the statements from the artcle that Reformed Baptist provided indicates that Men may have lived in closed communities and therefore their living in the same area may not have occured.

On the other hand You can still "believe" the bible and not take the same view as others. For instance. I believe the bible to be accurate by what it means with the six days of creation. But that might not be a literalistic pov.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

We should be clear here. When it is noted that there is no archeological evidence that shows dinosaurs and man co-existing, that neither refutes a 6 day creation view, nor does it bolster it. I mention this because there are a few here that take the position of "if you don't believe human and dinosaurs exist in the same place, then you don't believe in the bible". That's simply untrue.

If we don't see dinos and humans co-existing, then we are re-interpreting the Scripture beginning with our science instead of the Bible. IF we start wtih the Bible and then look at evidence we see no conflict.

 

[Winman]

If human and dinosaur bones are ever found in the same layers, it would be a fascinating find to both creationists and evolutionists

The fact that dinosaur and human fossils are not found together does not prove they didn't co-exist. You wouldn't expect to find them together. Dinosaurs lived in the wild, men have always congregated together. It would be very unusual to find a human fossil with those of a bear or a wolf.

And the fossil record that evolutionists argue shows a gradual upward evolution is the same. You should not find human fossils alongside sealife. Man does not live at the depths of the oceans.

But the fact is, there have been fossils and men found together, or at least in the same strata several times.

Here is one example, the Malachite man.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm

Of course, if you want to dismiss this you can, doesn't make the evidence false.

And there is an abundance of ancient art showing dinosaurs. This comes from many various civilizations all across the world, often seperated by great distances.

This site has page after page of ancient art showing dinosaurs which is great evidence that man and dinos co-existed.

http://www.s8int.com/dinolit1.html

 

[Johnv]

If we don't see dinos and humans co-existing, then we are re-interpreting the Scripture...

You're wrong. If there's no evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, then it means there's no evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. That's it.

 

[Johnv]

Here is one example, the Malachite man.

Many pictures of "Malachite Man" are the same pictures claiming to be "Moab Man". The people making claims about Malachite Man have refused to supply data that might be used to verify their claim.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You're wrong. If there's no evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, then it means there's no evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. That's it.

Your smarter than to make an argument from silence.

 

[Winman]

Many pictures of "Malachite Man" are the same pictures claiming to be "Moab Man". The people making claims about Malachite Man have refused to supply data that might be used to verify their claim.

Like I said, you can dismiss all evidence if you so choose. But the evidence that man lived with dinos is abundant, although ancient men called dinos "dragons". There have been literally thousands of accounts of dragons throughout history from dozens of different civilizations, often recorded by very learned scholars and even government officials.

It is clear you will not even consider the possibility that man and dinos lived together.

 

[Johnv]

Your smarter than to make an argument from silence.

So, it's your contention that, in order to believe in a 6 day creation, one must believe that evidence of human and dinosaur tracks existing at the same time has been found?

 

[Johnv]

Like I said, you can dismiss all evidence if you so choose.

There is no evidence in the aforementioned link. Just some finds and photos which the finders refuse to let anyone analyze.

It is clear you will not even consider the possibility that man and dinos lived together.

I don't need science to confirm my scriptural view. That said, if there is an item of evidence, it needs to be subject to peer review and the scientific method like another other item of evidence. Doesn't matter if that evidence supports the idea of man and dinos living together or not.