Dinosaurs

[ayin jade]

After all, Crocodiles and an Alligators are dinosaurs.

No they are not.

[KeilanS]

Well I have to take off, (just so nobody thinks I'm ignoring them if they reply), night all.

[apothanein kerdos]

I wanted the Christian view on this, whats up with the dinos?

They were obviously on this planet at one point, and the earth isn't several bajillion years old, so whats your theory on them?

That the earth is several billions years old and they existed prior to man.

I'm no theistic evolutionist, but I am certainly an old earth creationist.

Hmm, question for you then AK.

I've been told that the Sahara Desert as well as the Great Barrier Reef have been shown to both be a bit over 6000 years old (by measuring the speed at which they expand). So when do you believe the flood occured? I'm thinking those facts point to about 6000 years ago.

Also, if you're not a theistic evolutionist... why do you think the earth is billions of years old? Most people who believe that also seem to believe humans evolved from monkey (except they say that it was God that caused it)... and can I assume that you believe the biblical days to be "long periods of time" rather than a modern day?

Well the Desert probably began to grow just a few thousand years ago. You have to remember, there are early reports of mass forests in the middle east just a few thousand years ago...this is an area that is primarly desert. It's very likely that after the ice age the Sahara began to form as the rains moved from its area up north.

As for human evolution, no. I do not believe there is enough evidence to teach that species evolved into other species over time. I woudl argue that the fossil record actually disproves this.

[nebula]

The idea that dinosaurs were reptiles has significantly been challenged.

[Joy in the Journey]

Anyways, I've watched some seminars by a guy named Kent Hovind, and I think he's on the right track.

I'd be cautious of Mr. Hovind. While I am a firm believer in a young Earth, and a lot of what he says is indeed in line with the Bible, Kent has some ways about him that just aren't trustworthy. And we know that a good tree can't bear bad fruit- and likewise a bad tree can't bear good fruit ( Matthew 7:15-20 ) and "Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them" ( Matthew 7:20 ) - speaking of false prophets.

I think a lot of the things he says is true, but his teachings on subverting government authority ( ie. avoiding taxes ) for example are not Biblical. We are commanded to obey our leaders and to not make life hard on them ( 1 Peter 2:13-15 )...their authority comes from God and they, whether they do right or wrong, will be held to account before God...that is His call and not ours- we are simply called to honor them ( unless they order a direct violation of the Bible of course ).

At any rate, just be careful of Kent- I'm not judging the man, but he is out on bail as we speak for an upcoming trial next month where he could go to prison for a few years- and to me, that's not a very good witness ( to be in unrepentant sin ) for a Christian ( we shall know a man's heart by the fruit he bears ).

Cheers,

Tim

[KeilanS]

I am indeed cautious of Dr. Hovind, to be quite honest, I don't like the man. He's downright arrogant and makes fun of people for no apparent reason. However, I believe his theory may be correct.

I have another question for any old earth creationists... since the bible clearly states that different stages of creation took place during different time periods (whether these with 24 hour days or hundreds of millions of years). So does this mean that for millions of years the earth had plants but no animals, and then over the next periods of millions of years, animals began to appear? Also, wouldn't this mean that the first half (roughly) of creation took place with no light... or without stars/sun anyway, obviously light came from somewhere because God seperated it from darkness before the sun and stars came to be.

Just to note, I've seen people ask about why people post what they post recently, so I figured I'd clarify this. I don't claim to know anything and I don't want to challenge anyones faith (a faith I share), I just want to figure out the truth.

[Botz]

Interesting.

I would think a couple of things against an old earth theory would be:-

1. The salinity of the sea...apparently it is meant to be getting saltier...if the world had been going for millions of years it would be more saline than the Dead Sea and nothing would survive in it.

2. Space dust....dust accumulates on the surface of the Moon at a steady rate...when the first spaceship landed, some feared it would disappear under tons of accumulated dust, but in all that time there was only a few centimetres, and the Apollo spacecraft landed safely.

........................................................

There are also several species around now that were meant to have been extinct for millions of years...I am thinking particularly of the coelacanth rediscovered on a fishing trip in the 1930's.

A personal thought is...why would the L-rd create the Heavens and the Earth and only populate the Earth millions of years later...it seems more reasonable to understand that the Earth was created for mankind to inhabit straight away.

Psa 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

[Leonard]

Back in the 1980's a Japanese fishing ship pulled up an almost completely intact Pteradactyl! Theory: "Well, er....I uh.......ummmmm.....OH YEAH!!! Here it is: It was frozen in an ice berg for the last 60 or 80 million years, and just thawed out......and was sinking.......slowly.....to the bottom of the ocean, when these guys just happend in this 1 in 100 trillion chance, to snag in in their net......YEAH, THAT'S IT!!!"

I've seen pictographs of people riding brontosauruses, and Pteradons. I've seen pictures from archeologists of carved pillars in a Buddhist temple showing one of those goofy looking dinosaurs with the bony plates up and down their backs (Can't remember what they're called).

In the early 1990's my older brother (quite the outdoorsie type) brought home a stick he found in the desert just outside of Phoenix. The odd thing was half the stick was wood, and the other half was completely petrified. So complete petrification can indeed take place in less time than it takes for a 1/2' thick stick to decay!

These things raise some fairly serious questions in my mind.

[nebula]

2. Space dust....dust accumulates on the surface of the Moon at a steady rate...when the first spaceship landed, some feared it would disappear under tons of accumulated dust, but in all that time there was only a few centimetres, and the Apollo spacecraft landed safely.

I can look it up if you need me to -

But the space dust argument has been dealt with a long time ago. It's a dead duck argument, basically.

Don't know about the ocean argument, though - other than the difference between the ocean and the dead sea is that th ocean receives a greater supply of new fresh water (rain) than the Dead Sea does.

But unless we do the math, we can't see how it works out.

[nebula]

Keilen -

As far as Genesis 1 interpretation goes, I read Genesis 1 as a prophetic account of Creation rather than a scientific account.

Prophetic language doesn't always fit the scientific rules, and terms do not always mean what the face value implies.

I'll leave it at that, unless you desire more clarification.