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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.