Evolution Question About Dinosaurs

[Guest]

On 3/29/2019 at 9:31 AM, choir loft said:

It has been documented that science proves the Bible.

On the other hand, it's also been demonstrated that the Bible disproves modern concepts of scientific method and measure.  For instance, Freudian psychology which is more of an art than science suggests humans are basically good.  The Bible says we are not basically good.  Except for the redeeming work of God we have fewer redeeming qualities than the common cockroach.   Animals kill to eat.  We kill for a percentage, for personal advantage, for sport or whatever national flag we choose to wave.  

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT.

Detractors of the Bible claim God's Word makes assertions it most definitely does not attempt in any way shape or form.

Read the Bible and what the Bible says.  

It's the story of the fall and redemption of man.  That's it and that's all.   The Bible is consistent with its own theme, which does not address the constantly changing theories and applications of modern science and failures of technology.

YOU ARE CORRECT in saying that when people attempt to merge science with Biblical truth they fail.   Why?  Because the attempt generally seeks to justify technology at the expense of God's Word - or - to dismiss scientific fact through the use of buzz words and religious slogans.

 The trap is in the attempt to create conflict where none in truth exists.

"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary.

Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism.

Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism." - Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

If a person cannot accept the Bible as God's inspired words and accurate as originally recorded, one must decide what is truth and what is metaphor.  I don't believe God would intentionally mislead us.  The truth sometimes requires a deeper dive.

[ARGOSY]

On 3/25/2019 at 11:37 PM, Spock said:

I’m perplexed, so I’d appreciate any word of knowledge here (scientific knowledge of course). 

If the dinosaurs lived on Earth between 200-65 million years ago, why are most of the alleged fossil bones found very near the surface of the earth? 

I mean, we usually have to dig pretty far down to get oil, right?  And oil comes from dead plants and animals, right?  So, if these dead plants and animals are very far down under the earth’s surface, why are all these alleged dinosaur bones from 200-65 million years ago so close to the surface and why aren’t they way down there as well? 

Thanks,

spock 

I believe the scientific timeframes are incorrect, but the geological layers are correct. The flood occurred at the end of the Permian. There are large scale signs of flooding into every continental interior then.  The oil comes from the massive pre-flood forests when the world was much wetter. Dinosaurs occurred after the flood in the dryer landscape, they are rapidly adapted birds and sea-reptiles. Whenever an area is devoid of animals, a few species can rapidly adapt to fill all the ecological niches of that vacant land. (Happened recently in Madagascar and Australia)

So we find the dinosaurs on top, close to the surface, and often exposed, because they are more recent, post flood animals, adapted from large birds and large reptiles from the pre-flood era.

 

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by ARGOSY

[Who me]

On 29 March 2019 at 2:06 PM, Spock said:

i have read some from each side and then I just apply my God given common sense to take over. We all have that I believe. So believe what you want brother about this. As long as you believe and follow only the Lord Jesus for salvation it’s all good with me.

Except if you are following your common sence as influenced by bible biased brains, you would believe the bible and not atheistic inspired evolutionary theories.

[ARGOSY]

On 3/28/2019 at 5:43 PM, Spock said:

Great post brother. Clap clap

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I usually tell people, this is all I need to know and apparently all God wants me to know. Just know and believe it...that should suffice. 

Having said that, I do believe our enemy is creating stories and lies to mislead people from the truth. That Imo should be exposed so people can understand not everything being promoted as truth is actually that (goo to man for one of them).

The same words are used in v1, to describe the land and sky created in day 2 and day 3. 

If we are honest with the text, we wouldn't be seeing different usages of the word land and sky in v1 compared to day 2 and day 3. V1 is a summary of conditions becoming liveable on a dark and water earth. 

Creation week does not even hint at the age of the planet or the universe, those concepts didn't even have words in Hebrew. This dark misty watery planet was made habitable 6000 years ago, that is creation week.

Edited April 1, 2019 by ARGOSY

[Spock]

On 3/31/2019 at 9:44 AM, ARGOSY said:

I believe the scientific timeframes are incorrect, but the geological layers are correct. The flood occurred at the end of the Permian. There are large scale signs of flooding into every continental interior then.  The oil comes from the massive pre-flood forests when the world was much wetter. Dinosaurs occurred after the flood in the dryer landscape, they are rapidly adapted birds and sea-reptiles. Whenever an area is devoid of animals, a few species can rapidly adapt to fill all the ecological niches of that vacant land. (Happened recently in Madagascar and Australia)

So we find the dinosaurs on top, close to the surface, and often exposed, because they are more recent, post flood animals, adapted from large birds and large reptiles from the pre-flood era.

 

 

I don’t believe in Darwin’s MACRO EVOLUTION theory.  I do not believe new species can come from another species. You can’t get a cat from a dog, and likewise,  you can’t get a bird from a dinosaur. And please don’t even try to convince me man came from ape who came from some lizard who can from some fish who came from some Protozoa who came from slime.  If you want to believe that, fine by me, I don’t care.  But honestly, I find the whole thing laughable because there is no credible scientific evidence to support this and I believe the real push behind believing this is philosophical, not scientific. 

And to think some lightning struck some pond to create life.....seriously, who writes this stuff.  And to create something organic from something inorganic.......such has never been done, even by scientists in today’s high tech labs.

  Please,  Don’t bother to try to convince me  But if you feel the need to write some rebuttal to this post to show me the error of my thinking, have at it. Like I said, I doubt I will respond except by pointing you to Behu or Deaton’s books.  Argue with them.  Debating this topic has shown me is the biggest waste of time in my life.  Atheists “need for this theory” to alleviate their minds from the thought of facing  God who will judge them, and Christians who believe this are just...........I believe either confused, misguided, or pressured to believe.  It takes much more faith to believe in Macro Evolution than to believe Jesus is Lord....much more. Lol

Im perfectly content to agree to disagree.  

[ARGOSY]

2 minutes ago, Spock said:

I don’t believe in Darwin’s MACRO EVOLUTION theory.  I do not believe new species can come from another species. You can’t get a cat from a dog, and likewise,  you can’t get a bird from a dinosaur. And please don’t even try to convince me man came from ape who came from some lizard who can from some fish who came from some Protozoa who came from slime.  If you want to believe that, fine by me, I don’t care.  But honestly, I find the whole thing laughable because there is no credible scientific evidence to support this and I believe the real push behind believing this is philosophical, not scientific. 

And to think some lightning struck some pond to create life.....seriously, who writes this stuff.  And to create something organic from something inorganic.......such has never been done, even by scientists in today’s high tech labs.

  Please,  Don’t bother to try to convince me  But if you feel the need to write some rebuttal to this post to show me the error of my thinking, have at it. Like I said, I doubt I will respond except by pointing you to Behu or Deaton’s books.  Argue with them.  Debating this topic has shown me is the biggest waste of time in my life.  Atheists “need for this theory” to alleviate their minds from the thought of facing  God who will judge them, and Christians who believe this are just...........I believe either confused, misguided, or pressured to believe.  It takes much more faith to believe in Macro Evolution than to believe Jesus is Lord....much more. Lol

Im perfectly content to agree to disagree.  

I also don't believe in macro evolution, I believe there can be limited adaptation over short periods of time within the 6000 time frame which I am very committed to being a Bible literalist.

If you don't want to chat about it, I'm cool with that.

Edited April 1, 2019 by ARGOSY

[Spock]

Just now, ARGOSY said:

I also don't believe in macro evolution, I believe there can be limited adaptation over short periods of time within the 6000 time frame which I am very committed to bring a Bible literalist.

If you don't want to chat about it, I'm cool with that.

I don’t want to chat about MACRO EVOLUTION or man evolved from......

Nothing to gain by that chat. 

[ARGOSY]

Just now, Spock said:

I don’t want to chat about MACRO EVOLUTION or man evolved from......

Nothing to gain by that chat. 

You misunderstand me completely. Please do NOT imply I believe we came from apes. I'm a creationist, not an evolutionist. If you don't want to understand where I'm coming from, I'm good with that, but please do not assume my entire belief system from misunderstanding one concept of mine.

[Spock]

3 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

You misunderstand me completely. Please do NOT imply I believe we came from apes. I'm a creationist, not an evolutionist. If you don't want to understand where I'm coming from, I'm good with that, but please do not assume my entire belief system from misunderstanding one concept of mine.

Yes, there is a misunderstanding here. My post should not have been directed to just  you because it was meant to be GENERAL to all who read this.....not to just you. 

My apology for that.  I should NOT have written that post while piggybacking off your last post, which really had nothing to do with what I wrote.  Actually someone else wrote something that triggered my macro evolution post, not you.  Sorry mate, spock

[ARGOSY]

11 minutes ago, Spock said:

Yes, there is a misunderstanding here. My post should not have been directed to just  because it was meant to be GENERAL to all who read this.....not to just you. 

My apology for that.  I should NOT have written that piggybacking off your last post, which really had nothing to do with what I wrote.  Actually someone else wrote something that triggered my macro evolution post, not you.  Sorry mate, spock

No problem, I have an in depth knowledge of this subject, and for various reasons short term adaptation is I feel an essential explanation of reality. I understand some creationists don't want to even consider adaptation, feeling any adaptation contradicts the Bible.  But I won't go into detail in this thread.