-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
T Rex vs Cro Magnon
- Thread starter Johnv
- Start date
because they are not the same age!!
how old was adam 5 seconds after God created him???????????????well, the logical answer is that he was 5 seconds old..........and people often miss the point that a 5 second old adam was an upright walking man..........now how can that be?.......my thought is this.........GOD CAN "COMPACT" TIME IN ANY MANNER IN WHICH HE CHOOSES........what i mean by this is if you could have "radiocarboned" adam as soon as God created him how old would this test say he was???
well if it is an accurate test, then it will say 5 seconds.........yet the results (adam) were lets say a 20 year old man!!!.........God compacted 20 years into 5 seconds.......
just a thought
how old was adam 5 seconds after God created him???????????????well, the logical answer is that he was 5 seconds old..........and people often miss the point that a 5 second old adam was an upright walking man..........now how can that be?.......my thought is this.........GOD CAN "COMPACT" TIME IN ANY MANNER IN WHICH HE CHOOSES........what i mean by this is if you could have "radiocarboned" adam as soon as God created him how old would this test say he was???
well if it is an accurate test, then it will say 5 seconds.........yet the results (adam) were lets say a 20 year old man!!!.........God compacted 20 years into 5 seconds.......
just a thought
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Actually, carbon dating doesn't work for T-REX fossils. They are so old all the carbon atoms involved would have decayed away completely and other, longer lived, radioactive elements must be used.
The Galatian
Active Member
However, carbon dating works very well for some things. It really applies only to organic material less than 40,000 years old.
It was recently calibrated by varves from a lake in Japan, (and other sources) and turns out to be very accurate.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/hughen2000/hughen2000.html
It was recently calibrated by varves from a lake in Japan, (and other sources) and turns out to be very accurate.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/hughen2000/hughen2000.html
Good arguements! I guess what I was getting at was: Why do Jurassic aged fossils not appear in the same timeline as any human fossils? This example of fossil evidence suggests overwhemlingly that they were extinct long before (not just before) the appearance of humans. Yet neither Gen1 nor 2 explain this.
If they were extinct long before humans existed, then how come Job 39-40 describe not only a dinosaur, but its dietary habits as well??
There is no sound support for dinosaurs being extinct before human existence because A.the Bible doesn't contradict itself, and when it is being exegetically examined, you see that the Genesis account is to be interpreted literally.
B.The arguments for an old universe are easily shown as baseless by such creationists as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind.
There is no sound support for dinosaurs being extinct before human existence because A.the Bible doesn't contradict itself, and when it is being exegetically examined, you see that the Genesis account is to be interpreted literally.
B.The arguments for an old universe are easily shown as baseless by such creationists as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind.
John, the 'timeline' is presupposed by evolutionists based upon uniformitarian and gradualistic premises. That is the first point.Originally posted by Johnv:
Good arguements! I guess what I was getting at was: Why do Jurassic aged fossils not appear in the same timeline as any human fossils? This example of fossil evidence suggests overwhemlingly that they were extinct long before (not just before) the appearance of humans. Yet neither Gen1 nor 2 explain this.
The second is that we would not expect them to be buried in the same areas or strata for they would have lived in such different areas. The large dinosaurs, due to body mass and other physical requirements, would have needed to live in the hot, steamy river valleys left by the exploding 'fountains of the deep' which precipitated the Flood. These were geologically active areas as well as being hot and steamy and thus men would not have lived anywhere near them! Yes, we can see from Job that men were aware of them and knew about them, but how eager would you be to move your family to a steamy river valley which was subject to frequent geological disturbances -- think earthquakes and landslides and geysers and such?
Men would have congregated on the plateaus, where there was access to water without the dangers of the rift valleys. The Tigris and Euphrates were much safer areas than the Jordan Rift zone, for instance, during those early years.
And so those dinosaurs which succumbed to the local disasters and were buried were in a vastly different area than man. The large dinos would not have ventured out, as they could not have survived outside that environment and men would not have ventured in except as possible explorers and daredevils.
In the meantime, the evidence that man and dinosaur were contemporaneous is large and growing. "Dinosaur", "T. Rex" and such are all very modern names. The name used before was 'dragon.' Isaiah 30:6 mentions a 'fiery flying serpent' right along with lions, vipers, camels and asses. The NIV definitely mistranslates this one as 'darting serpent' -- but they are relying upon current 'scientific' knowledge. The Hebrew makes no bones about a reference to a 'fiery flying serpent' (or reptile) in a couple of places. The Chinese speak of dragons. Alexander the Great's army on its last push, toward India, has records of some kind of confrontation with a horrid monster. The legends of Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and so many others also remember these 'monsters' and dragons. Accurate representations of both 'ancient' sea monsters and land and air 'ancient' animals are carved into rocks around the world, have been seen on Roman pottery, etc.
So either we have a worldwide enormous imagination which all correlates with each other, or men and dinosaurs actually were contemporaneous as the Bible clearly points out.
The Galatian
Active Member
We know, from the fossil record that dinosaurs lived in a variety of environments. They weren't all living in steamy swamps (which are no more tectonically active than other areas). Some even lived in deserts (we have the remains of some small ones buried in sand dunes)
And yes, there were "dragons" in historical times. We still have a few smaller ones, living on the island of Komodo, in the East Indies. Much larger versions of this dragon lived on the Asian mainland in earlier times.
They aren't dinosaurs, of course. Dinosaurs lived long before there were humans to see them. That's why there aren't any human fossils in the same strata as dinosaur fossils.
How do we know the radiometric dating is correct? Here's one way:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html
And yes, there were "dragons" in historical times. We still have a few smaller ones, living on the island of Komodo, in the East Indies. Much larger versions of this dragon lived on the Asian mainland in earlier times.
They aren't dinosaurs, of course. Dinosaurs lived long before there were humans to see them. That's why there aren't any human fossils in the same strata as dinosaur fossils.
How do we know the radiometric dating is correct? Here's one way:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html
First of all, I pointed out that it was the large dinos which needed the steamy environments. And the fact that some were buried in dunes does not mean they lived in deserts, but that deserts rapidly overtook where they were living in massive windstorms. We have seen similar on a smaller scale today.
Nor was I talking about swamps, but about rift zone river valleys which would have been left after the Flood and still been geologically active. Please read what I am actually saying instead of opposing what I haven't said or not paying attention to it, Galatian.
Nor is the kimodo dragon and such what I am referring to. I am referring to the fact that real dinosaurs were referred to as dragons. The lizards have hip joints that give them legs splayed out from the sides of their bodies -- this is quite different from the large dinosaurs who were supported upright on their legs, so please don't try to confuse the two.
About radiometric dating -- it is generally correct as a measure of atomic time. Atomic processes, however, are not constants, as a variety of measurements through the last couple of hundred years have shown (for instance, here:
http://www.setterfield.org/Charts.htm#graphs), and since radiodecay rates are part and parcel of atomic processes, it follows that radiodecay rates are not constant and therefore the timeline as shown by radiometric processes is not at all the same as the timeline we go by in reference to the orbital, or gravitational, clock (which is the one God told us to use in Genesis 1:14, by the way).
So we have a choice: define the orbital clock by the radiometric clock or the radiometric clock by the orbital clock. They run at different rates, as has been shown and reported scientifically. God, in Genesis, tells us to use the orbital clock as the one to keep time by. Again, I think He knows what He is talking about...
Nor was I talking about swamps, but about rift zone river valleys which would have been left after the Flood and still been geologically active. Please read what I am actually saying instead of opposing what I haven't said or not paying attention to it, Galatian.
Nor is the kimodo dragon and such what I am referring to. I am referring to the fact that real dinosaurs were referred to as dragons. The lizards have hip joints that give them legs splayed out from the sides of their bodies -- this is quite different from the large dinosaurs who were supported upright on their legs, so please don't try to confuse the two.
About radiometric dating -- it is generally correct as a measure of atomic time. Atomic processes, however, are not constants, as a variety of measurements through the last couple of hundred years have shown (for instance, here:
http://www.setterfield.org/Charts.htm#graphs), and since radiodecay rates are part and parcel of atomic processes, it follows that radiodecay rates are not constant and therefore the timeline as shown by radiometric processes is not at all the same as the timeline we go by in reference to the orbital, or gravitational, clock (which is the one God told us to use in Genesis 1:14, by the way).
So we have a choice: define the orbital clock by the radiometric clock or the radiometric clock by the orbital clock. They run at different rates, as has been shown and reported scientifically. God, in Genesis, tells us to use the orbital clock as the one to keep time by. Again, I think He knows what He is talking about...
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Hmmm - Helen, I missed that commandment about using the orbital clock to keep time by. What verse issues that command?
OK I located a link to a picture of a pair of galaxies termed "the mice".
http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/MSFC-0203049.html
Computer simulations, as per the accompanying narrative, indicate that these galaxies became severely distorted by gravitational interactions alone. Therefore the time necessary for these distortions to have occurred have nothing to do with the speed of light per se, merely with the orbit times of the stars involved. The narrative at the link tells us how many years were involved, considerably more than 6000! Where in your cosmology do you have the time for that tidal interaction between galaxies to take place?
[ April 08, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Paul of Eugene ]
OK I located a link to a picture of a pair of galaxies termed "the mice".
http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/MSFC-0203049.html
Computer simulations, as per the accompanying narrative, indicate that these galaxies became severely distorted by gravitational interactions alone. Therefore the time necessary for these distortions to have occurred have nothing to do with the speed of light per se, merely with the orbit times of the stars involved. The narrative at the link tells us how many years were involved, considerably more than 6000! Where in your cosmology do you have the time for that tidal interaction between galaxies to take place?
[ April 08, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Paul of Eugene ]
The Galatian
Active Member
Maiasaurs lived in highland areas, away from swamps and rivers. We have many of their nests, some with eggs, with evidence that they lived there to tend them.First of all, I pointed out that it was the large dinos which needed the steamy environments.
What evidence do you have for the idea that large dinosaurs had to have swampy land in which to live?
I don't recall an instance of a windstorm burying a swamp in sand. And since the dinosaurs were in a nest built in the sand we couldn't use that explaination. And even if you supposed that the large dinos were the only ones limited to swamps, that wouldn't explain why all dinosaurs are in much older strata than humans.And the fact that some were buried in dunes does not mean they lived in deserts, but that deserts rapidly overtook where they were living in massive windstorms. We have seen similar on a smaller scale today.
All rift valleys are geologically active. It doesn't keep people out of them. I've been told by creationists that the dinosaurs died out in the flood.Nor was I talking about swamps, but about rift zone river valleys which would have been left after the Flood and still been geologically active.
Please read what I am actually saying instead of opposing what I haven't said or not paying attention to it, Galatian.
I don't see any evidence for that.Nor is the kimodo dragon and such what I am referring to. I am referring to the fact that real dinosaurs were referred to as dragons.
Hmm... the "dragons" I see in most illustrations of them, have the legs splayed out. Besides, Komodo dragons (although they are lizards) have a posture like this:The lizards have hip joints that give them legs splayed out from the sides of their bodies -- this is quite different from the large dinosaurs who were supported upright on their legs, so please don't try to confuse the two.
http://www.travelpics.net/komodowaran_e.htm
Not splayed at all. They only splay when resting.
Actually, extremely intense heat can slightly affect radioactive decay. However, rocks reset the clock whenever they are heated to those temperatures and remelt. So the measurement is still valid.About radiometric dating -- it is generally correct as a measure of atomic time. Atomic processes, however, are not constants, as a variety of measurements through the last couple of hundred years have shown (for instance, here:
http://www.setterfield.org/Charts.htm#graphs), and since radiodecay rates are part and parcel of atomic processes, it follows that radiodecay rates are not constant and therefore the timeline as shown by radiometric processes is not at all the same as the timeline we go by in reference to the orbital, or gravitational, clock (which is the one God told us to use in Genesis 1:14, by the way).
Actually, we've tested that:So we have a choice: define the orbital clock by the radiometric clock or the radiometric clock by the orbital clock. They run at different rates, as has been shown and reported scientifically.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html
We know this date precisely from the "orbital clock". And the radiometric clock gave precisely the same time. So that's not a valid objection, either. Pompeii was buried in 79 A.D., and the analysis was off by 7 years, less than .36% error, or about 3.6 years per thousand. It appears that Setterfield's curves would call for a much greater error than that.
So the only Godly instruments for timekeeping are sundials and calendars? I don't think so.God, in Genesis, tells us to use the orbital clock as the one to keep time by.
I'd sure like to see the verse where He says we can only use the orbit of the Earth around the Sun for timekeeping.Again, I think He knows what He is talking about...
[ April 08, 2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]
The idea that large dinosaurs needed "steamy" environments is an old idea that's long since been abandoned. Many "larger" animals, brachiosaurs, for example, were at home in conifer forests not unlike North American forests today.
Still, the arguement remains the same for "smaller" dinos. The Triceratops and Rhinoscerus are roughnly the same size and shared similar environments, yet are separated by 65 million years. Their fossils don't turn up in the same place. They turn up in entirely separate places. Additionally, the regions where the tric fossils are found also yield botanical fossil evidence to show that the environment at that time was similar to rhino living conditions today. Rhinos and Triceratops do not share the same place in history.
Velociraptor is another example. They were the size of large dogs (the Jurassic Park movies made them two meters tall, but they were in reality much smaller). Same goes with oviraptor, eguanadon, Compsognathus (the size of chickens) and Rhamphorhynchus. Meanwhile, other dinosauria like Allosaurus continually appear even earlier (mid-Jurassic) and don't appear with their later cretaceous cousins. You simply don't have these fossils (mixed up and deposited) in the same laywer as some flood folks would argue. They're all in very specific layers of time, and aren't sifted due to size. Otherwise, all the biggest ones would be in one location and the smallest ones would be at another. That simply doesn't happen.
Still, the arguement remains the same for "smaller" dinos. The Triceratops and Rhinoscerus are roughnly the same size and shared similar environments, yet are separated by 65 million years. Their fossils don't turn up in the same place. They turn up in entirely separate places. Additionally, the regions where the tric fossils are found also yield botanical fossil evidence to show that the environment at that time was similar to rhino living conditions today. Rhinos and Triceratops do not share the same place in history.
Velociraptor is another example. They were the size of large dogs (the Jurassic Park movies made them two meters tall, but they were in reality much smaller). Same goes with oviraptor, eguanadon, Compsognathus (the size of chickens) and Rhamphorhynchus. Meanwhile, other dinosauria like Allosaurus continually appear even earlier (mid-Jurassic) and don't appear with their later cretaceous cousins. You simply don't have these fossils (mixed up and deposited) in the same laywer as some flood folks would argue. They're all in very specific layers of time, and aren't sifted due to size. Otherwise, all the biggest ones would be in one location and the smallest ones would be at another. That simply doesn't happen.
Quite frankly, the dinosaur fossils wouldn't necessarily have to mixed up in the same layer as other fossils. Research on what a flood that is brought on by forty days and forty nights of rain and covers the whole earth supports the young earth and the fossils themselves.(check out the water filled sediment concerning fossils)
Most importantly, we have a choice to believe God or call Him a liar. I'll stick to believing Him.
This issue carries more weight as a young earth Creationist, but even the other more important issues that can't be computed/figured out I will always have faith in what God has said. It goes back to the first four words in the Bible, "In the beginning, God..."
Most importantly, we have a choice to believe God or call Him a liar. I'll stick to believing Him.
This issue carries more weight as a young earth Creationist, but even the other more important issues that can't be computed/figured out I will always have faith in what God has said. It goes back to the first four words in the Bible, "In the beginning, God..."
The Galatian
Active Member
They would if they were buried at the same time. Keep in mind, that the early dinosaurs are also buried in lower sediment than the later ones. And all of them are buried below more modern organisms.Quite frankly, the dinosaur fossils wouldn't necessarily have to mixed up in the same layer as other fossils.
Post that research. I'd like to see it.Research on what a flood that is brought on by forty days and forty nights of rain and covers the whole earth supports the young earth and the fossils themselves.
None of us is God. And differing with me on what He said about it is not "calling Him a liar". Nor is differing with you calling Him a liar.Most importantly, we have a choice to believe God or call Him a liar.
Most importantly, we have a choice to believe God or call Him a liar. I'll stick to believing Him.
Being open the the possibility of an old earth and/or evolutionary process are not calling God a liar. They are simply not interpreting Genesis in a literal fashion. Jesus' parables aren't literal either, yet few would call Jesus a liar.
Being open the the possibility of an old earth and/or evolutionary process are not calling God a liar. They are simply not interpreting Genesis in a literal fashion. Jesus' parables aren't literal either, yet few would call Jesus a liar.
The Galatian, you can find that research on www.drdino.com
If you disagree with what the Bible says, it is calling God a liar.
John V, when studying the Bible, it is to be interpreted the way it was intended to be interpreted. The parables were never to be translated literally. However, the creation account is historical and was to be translated literally. One great way to see how this was intended to be literal was the fact that each day listed consisted of one evening and one morning. If you use proper exegetical methods of studying Scripture as a Christian, you will see these truths.
As for a previous post where I posted some Scripture that described large dinosaurs, and their diets, I posted the wrong Scripture. I said it was in Job 39-40, when in actuality it is Job 40:15-41:10.
If you disagree with what the Bible says, it is calling God a liar.
John V, when studying the Bible, it is to be interpreted the way it was intended to be interpreted. The parables were never to be translated literally. However, the creation account is historical and was to be translated literally. One great way to see how this was intended to be literal was the fact that each day listed consisted of one evening and one morning. If you use proper exegetical methods of studying Scripture as a Christian, you will see these truths.
As for a previous post where I posted some Scripture that described large dinosaurs, and their diets, I posted the wrong Scripture. I said it was in Job 39-40, when in actuality it is Job 40:15-41:10.
The Galatian
Active Member
[The Galatian, you can find that research on www.drdino.com[/quote]
Couldn't find it there. Perhaps you could show us where to find it. As even Helen points out, Hovind is highly unreliable as an authority on creationism or evolution.
Couldn't find it there. Perhaps you could show us where to find it. As even Helen points out, Hovind is highly unreliable as an authority on creationism or evolution.
But you aren't the Bible, or its Author. We're disagreeing about what it says. Merely asserting that disagreeing with you is "calling God a liar", doesn't help much.If you disagree with what the Bible says, it is calling God a liar.
A few Christians think so. Most don't.John V, when studying the Bible, it is to be interpreted the way it was intended to be interpreted. The parables were never to be translated literally. However, the creation account is historical and was to be translated literally.
But you can't have evenings and mornings with no sun to produce them. Which Christians pointed out long before the modern era.One great way to see how this was intended to be literal was the fact that each day listed consisted of one evening and one morning.
If you disagree with what the Bible says, it is calling God a liar.
I don't disagree with what the Bible says. I agree with your interpretation of it.
...when studying the Bible, it is to be interpreted the way it was intended to be interpreted.
I agree. I don't believe Genesis was intended to be interpreted as a factual narrative.
As for a previous post where I posted some Scripture that described large dinosaurs, and their diets, I posted the wrong Scripture. I said it was in Job 39-40, when in actuality it is Job 40:15-41:10.
The Hebrew bhemowth in an Egyptian derivation for "a water-ox", i.e. the hippopotamus or Nile-horse.
Interesting side note: in the KJV, Job 40:18 reads "His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass" which is a translational error. Brass hadn't been invented yet. The Hebrew word is nchushah which is bronze, not brass. Bronze was readily available at the time.
I don't disagree with what the Bible says. I agree with your interpretation of it.
...when studying the Bible, it is to be interpreted the way it was intended to be interpreted.
I agree. I don't believe Genesis was intended to be interpreted as a factual narrative.
As for a previous post where I posted some Scripture that described large dinosaurs, and their diets, I posted the wrong Scripture. I said it was in Job 39-40, when in actuality it is Job 40:15-41:10.
The Hebrew bhemowth in an Egyptian derivation for "a water-ox", i.e. the hippopotamus or Nile-horse.
Interesting side note: in the KJV, Job 40:18 reads "His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass" which is a translational error. Brass hadn't been invented yet. The Hebrew word is nchushah which is bronze, not brass. Bronze was readily available at the time.
JohnV, my NASB says bronze not brass. So, what's your point??
As for a behomoth being a hippopotamus, you should read the definition in Job again. No hippo has a tail that bends like a cedar tree. That is symbolism to show how massive its tail was.
By the way, I doubt your statistic is true regarding most Christians not believing that Genesis is historical narrative.
Galatians, if you go to that website and do some research, the information is there. If you still can't find it, try the Answers In Genesis website.
As for a behomoth being a hippopotamus, you should read the definition in Job again. No hippo has a tail that bends like a cedar tree. That is symbolism to show how massive its tail was.
By the way, I doubt your statistic is true regarding most Christians not believing that Genesis is historical narrative.
Galatians, if you go to that website and do some research, the information is there. If you still can't find it, try the Answers In Genesis website.
John, he's not interpreting it. He's taking it at face-value. By denying face-value and the straightforward meaning, you are the one who is doing the 'interpreting.' And you haven't a clue as to whether your interpretation is faulty or not, for you have no guide to go by other than men's faulty minds!Originally posted by Johnv:
If you disagree with what the Bible says, it is calling God a liar.
I don't disagree with what the Bible says. I agree with your interpretation of it.
That's your belief, and you are welcome to it. However it was written as a factual narrative and accepted as one for several thousand years, up to an including the present, by many of us. The early church considered it factual, certainly! Christ referred to it as factual. The various authors of the other books of the Bible who referred to it and quoted from it certainly accepted it as factual. I guess all of them, including our Lord Himself, just did not have the advantage of modern scholarship!...when studying the Bible, it is to be interpreted the way it was intended to be interpreted.
I agree. I don't believe Genesis was intended to be interpreted as a factual narrative.
First, the modern translations have 'bronze'. Second, Strongs, which is what you evidently used, is giving the current understandings of these words. However, if you really think that a water ox or hippo fits the description there in Job, you have sure seen different animals than I have!As for a previous post where I posted some Scripture that described large dinosaurs, and their diets, I posted the wrong Scripture. I said it was in Job 39-40, when in actuality it is Job 40:15-41:10.
The Hebrew bhemowth in an Egyptian derivation for "a water-ox", i.e. the hippopotamus or Nile-horse.
Interesting side note: in the KJV, Job 40:18 reads "His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass" which is a translational error. Brass hadn't been invented yet. The Hebrew word is nchushah which is bronze, not brass. Bronze was readily available at the time.