Rosenritter
New member
Right you are. I'll try to find it, we can leave this thread for "Creation vs. Evolution."
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Right you are. I'll try to find it, we can leave this thread for "Creation vs. Evolution."
OK, I have read it. As to the scientific content, do you think it makes a convincing case for dinosaurs living recently?
Rosenritter
New member
It is hard for me to say because I have seen a lot more evidence than that site, hours and more. That is my impression is already weighted. I think that site is a good starting point as a wakeup for why you won't see the evidence acknowledged by so-called scientific sources. For evidence you might consider even modern day reports from African tribes that caught and ate a small dinosaur. Said it made them sick. Things like that can be found is my point. Can't do the topic justice with one thumb on a cell phone.
What science did that site present that showed dinosaurs living within a literal Genesis timeframe?
Rosenritter
New member
In the Genesis timeframe the earth is created ex nihlo. Obviously the dinosaurs did not precede the creation of the earth in Genesis. Basic logic puts dinosaurs in Genesis timeframe.
Did you mean something else perhaps?
If I may intervene: The questions was - what science was presented that showed dinosaurs in the Genesis time frame.
Rosenritter
New member
The Genesis time frame starts at zero. Then the earth. They had a fossil of a dinosaur. That scientifically puts it in the Genesis time frame.
I think you don't understand your question. No offense meant.
If you accept the Biblical creation account literally, and count that as "Science", then you are right. Most people would not consider that "Science".
6days
New member
C14 dating of soft dino tissue...That is the science.
You are arguing about how to interpret evidence.
Doesn’t the “Genesis timeframe” mean basically within the last 7000 years? I didn’t see any dates at that site that fit that timeframe.
Rosenritter
New member
The Genesis timeframe would cover from the creation of the world and first life, which the chronologies date to approximately six thousand plus years. But when you say Genesis timeframe what comes to mind is Genesis 1:1
Genesis 1:1 KJV
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
If you are dealing with whether carbon dating is accurate from pre flood times that is a separate but valid question. The way those carbon dates are generated is to assume constant earth conditions, which is a false assumption.
Genesis 2:5-6 KJV
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. [6] But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Genesis 5:3 KJV
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
No rain, constant mist, and huge lifespans are not the world we have today. It does fit the huge insects, reptiles, etc that we find in fossil remains. It would be consistent with less radioactive energy messing with life on the surface, which is going to make your carbon dating look a lot older.
Those 22000 year numbers blindly assume constant conditions for at least the last 50000 years. That's why the are inflated.
That’s interesting, since every age they measured was obviously far before the Genesis Flood story. Yet I don’t see the authors even hinting that the ages they keep presenting are actually far greater than the real ages.
I just reread the entire article yet one more time, and I fail to see where it disputes the ages nearly as much as you seem to.
If the ages in the article (all of them over 20,000 years) are in fact really all less than 7000 years, then the article was horribly misleading throughout when it spoke of the ages it did.
Here are relevant quotes from the article:
--Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.
--C-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. The maximum theoretical detection limit is about 100,000 years, but radiocarbon dating is only reliable up to 55,000 years with the best equipment.
--The accuracy of carbon dates depends on whether the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 was the same in the past as it is today. Even with reliable results there is always a degree of uncertainty, and dates are usually given as +or- so many years.
--Carbon-14 is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique. It's accuracy has been verified by using C-14 to date artifacts whose age is known historically. The fluctuation of the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere over time adds a small uncertainty, but contamination by "modern carbon" such as decayed organic matter from soils poses a greater possibility for error.
--C-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. The maximum theoretical detection limit is about 100,000 years, but radiocarbon dating is only reliable up to 55,000 years with the best equipment.
--The accuracy of carbon dates depends on whether the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 was the same in the past as it is today. Even with reliable results there is always a degree of uncertainty, and dates are usually given as +or- so many years.
--Carbon-14 is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique. It's accuracy has been verified by using C-14 to date artifacts whose age is known historically. The fluctuation of the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere over time adds a small uncertainty, but contamination by "modern carbon" such as decayed organic matter from soils poses a greater possibility for error.
Now if you can find any place in the article where they even suggest that the real ages are as dramatically different from the C-14 ages as you are suggesting, then I would like you to point it out.
Since you seem to know what the authors failed to make even remotely clear, perhaps you should contact them and see if they agree that the article was massively deficient in leaving the impression that the C-14 ages and the real ages were comparable, when in fact they are, according to you, inflated by a factor of 5 or more.
Just goes to show that lots of stuff happened before the creation of the earth.
There was ice on Antarctica 790,000 years before the creation of the earth.
Humans settled down from their nomadic existence and began to plant crops some thousands of years before the creation of the earth.
I'd just go with it. It's a magical kind of crazy.
Stuart
Dear Grosnick,
You certainly must come again and post more next time!! You're very welcome to be here. You are a good friend!! There is no reason not to be here more often. I hope your week is full of great joy on the premise that Jesus will return, quite likely in our lifetimes, on Earth. At least have a smile on your face like the cat just got fed!!
Always Blessings For You, From His Excellence!!
Michael
:angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :angel: :guitar:
Last edited:
Yes you are
Dear patrick jane,
I could not spend much time here tonight. I will straighten things out tomorrow when I get on here. I'm too sleepy right now to give it a go. Ir is after 4 a.m. here and I just got to get to bed. I didn't get to bed last nite until 9 a.m. this morning. I've had a horrendous piling up of email from all week and I just got the last 110 posts done today. Whew!! Now I can spend so much more with you all here 2morrow. Even though I will probably get another 40 emails 2morrow, all will be okay. I will attend here where my heart is.
In Jesus' Name, As We Come Before Our Creator And Greatest Love,
Michael
I could not spend much time here tonight. I will straighten things out tomorrow when I get on here. I'm too sleepy right now to give it a go. Ir is after 4 a.m. here and I just got to get to bed. I didn't get to bed last nite until 9 a.m. this morning. I've had a horrendous piling up of email from all week and I just got the last 110 posts done today. Whew!! Now I can spend so much more with you all here 2morrow. Even though I will probably get another 40 emails 2morrow, all will be okay. I will attend here where my heart is.
In Jesus' Name, As We Come Before Our Creator And Greatest Love,
Michael
"We already knew the Earth was not the center of the universe, but now we know exactly where it is."
Galaxies and super clusters all gravitationally linked to what scientist are calling the "Great Attractor"
http://www.upworthy.com/we-already-knew-the-earth-was-not-the-center-of-the-universe-but-now-we-know-exactly-where-it-is?g=2&c=ufb3
PARADISE GRAVITY
"The inescapable pull of gravity effectively grips all the worlds of all the universes of all space. Gravity is the all-powerful grasp of the physical presence of Paradise. Gravity is the omnipotent strand on which are strung the gleaming stars, blazing suns, and whirling spheres which constitute the universal physical adornment of the eternal God, who is all things, fills all things, and in whom all things consist." UB 1955
Galaxies and super clusters all gravitationally linked to what scientist are calling the "Great Attractor"
http://www.upworthy.com/we-already-knew-the-earth-was-not-the-center-of-the-universe-but-now-we-know-exactly-where-it-is?g=2&c=ufb3
PARADISE GRAVITY
"The inescapable pull of gravity effectively grips all the worlds of all the universes of all space. Gravity is the all-powerful grasp of the physical presence of Paradise. Gravity is the omnipotent strand on which are strung the gleaming stars, blazing suns, and whirling spheres which constitute the universal physical adornment of the eternal God, who is all things, fills all things, and in whom all things consist." UB 1955
It's not really like me to say "Something created from nothing, by no one, is easier to believe than something created out of nothing by, someone"
I'm not really interested in what is easier to believe.
Or were you thinking I was doing something different?
Stuart
Have you tried reading Genesis 1 but replacing the word god with the word gravity?
It doesn't make sense when gravity is naming stuff, but the rest of it works quite well.
And it actually explains things that way, too, unlike that quote from your book of plagiarism.
Stuart
- Status