If Evolution

[Greg Jennings]

Don't we find dinosaurs with human fossils?

Why wouldn't there be a lot more evidence?

:think:

Thank you. I will investigate these and report back

On malachite man (also called Moab man) via wiki:
"Later examination of the "Moab Man" skeletons indicate that they are unfossilized remains that were subject to an intrusive burial, and have been carbon dated to between 210 and 1450 years old (Berger and Protsch, 1989; Coulam and Schroedl, 1995)"

On the fossilized hammer via wiki:
"J.R. Cole states: "The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble.""
I know that sounds like a bunch of jib-jab, but it's not. I've seen this recreated with coke bottles, though they become warped

On the finger, from http://paleo.cc/paluxy/finger.htm (most reliable source I could find):
"However, the supposed finger shows no clear internal features, exhibits a number of anatomic problems and is inconsistent with preservational features of other fossils from the area. Even more importantly, it has not been convincingly linked to any host formation, severely undermining its status as a possible geologic anomaly."

On the hand print, via the same source as the finger: "Despite Baugh's assertions, he provides no photos or other evidence indicating that the impression was ever in situ in any Cretaceous bed. If it were a real hand print, one would expect it to be associated with a sequence of footprints. Without such evidence, the alleged hand print is of little or no scientific value."
"It should be noted that Baugh has promoted a number of other alleged prints on loose rock slabs, such as the Burdick Track and the Caldwell track, which even most creationists consider carvings or probably carvings. Cross sections of the "hand print" might help clarify its origin, but so far it has not been sectioned."


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them

 

[Stuu]

Lon, there has never been a dinosaur found alongside people or modern mammals. You can't find a single example bc one doesn't exist.

But but...surely dioramas don't lie?

Stuart

 

[iouae]

Er, "tail" is a euphemism. So is "stones."

He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

Dinosaurs didn't have external "stones."

Thanks Barbarian, for explaining that euphemism to me.

The description sounds totally like an elephant.

Job 40:15
Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Check. elephant
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.Check. elephants have strength in their legs/loins
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. Check. elephant
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. Check.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. Check.
He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. Check. favourite place of elephants.
The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Check.
Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. Check. Definitely elephant. Elephants drink up to 50 gallons of water a day.
He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. Check. "nose" = trunk.

Warning: Adult content of elephant "tail" and "stones" http://bfy.tw/GGzQ

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

With iron working developed the same time as music?

And bronze and iron working developed by the same person?

I couldn't say.

Did they make purdy stuff first and then make weapons to protect them?

 

[marhig]

Not what scripture says.



Duh. But what does that have to do with God experiencing time differently?



Ripping a verse out of context is a surefire way of misinterpreting it, and ascribing meaning to it that it does not have.

Here, let's read the verse in context, specifically focusing on the following verse.

Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:1-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter3:1-9&version=KJ21

Verse 8 isn't saying God is outside of time.

"One day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" is a figure of speech (called a simile, ever heard of those?) that means God is patient and extraordinarily capable, as evidenced by the very next verse: "The Lord . . . is longsuffering toward us".

From Kgov:

"...with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8). Rather than implying that God is outside of time, the passage means that God is patient, and extraordinarily capable. He is patient, as stated in the very next verse, that God "is longsuffering toward us" (2 Pet. 3:9), for God is love, and love is patient. God has wonderful qualities that can only be had if He exists in time, including patience, being slow to anger, and hope. If God were outside of time He Himself could not even exhibit the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22) nor love (1 Cor. 13:4-7). If atemporal, He could not have expectation or hope, but He does have expectations (e.g., Isa. 5:1-4) and He is a God of hope (Rom. 15:13). The "thousand years" passage shows that God is extraordinarily capable and can do in a single day what men may think would take eons. It is not that God is able to do anything, for He can only do that which is doable. Regardless of how much time was available, He could not make another God just like Himself, nor could He make it a virtue to worship the devil. These are logical and moral impossibilities, and God is good, and rational. For He is truth. On the other hand, a thousand years are not as one day to those of us living on this Earth, because we face death, and we have severe limits to what we can accomplish in a day. (Although in a brief moment we can gain eternal life, by trusting in Jesus Christ.) Consider one example though of what God can do in a single day. Eleven times the Bible says that God stretched out the heavens. Looking at the stars then, it appears that the light of the universe has been traveling for eons, yet God stretched out the heavens in a single day (Gen. 1:14-19). In fact, it was on a Wednesday.

Nope. Not at all. God didn't create at night. He created during the day. And the evening and the morning were the [insert ordinal here] day.

It's basically saying that God created during the day, and the evening and the morning ended that day, and brought around the next.

I believe that God can do anything, if he wanted to create everything in one day (24 hours) then he could. But I know this earth is much older than 6000 years and I don't believe that Adam was the first man that existed, I believe that the verses in genesis also have deeper meanings.

I believe a day to God is light, and he does all his work in the day (light) not in the night, (darkness). So a day in the Lord is light. As for the evening and the morning being the first day, God always works from darkness leading into light. Those who belong to God were once in darkness until God put his hand on them and started doing his works. He worked on those who belong to him whilst they were in darkness. We hear the word whilst we are in the dark, the word is light, it is Spirit and life, and then once we hear the voice, and listen and believe and turn to God and start live by his will, he starts to work on our hearts, and in his time he will bless us with his Spirit. And then through revelation we are given the eyes to see and the ears to hear, bringing us to life and into his glorious light and it's all done through Christ. God doesn't leave anyone he puts his hand on in darkness but brings them into the light.

Also, I have heard people say, that God planted dinosaur bones in the ground to make the earth look older, God doesn't need to do this, he doesn't need to play tricks on anyone. Dinosaurs are very old, much older than 6000 years, they weren't around when humans walked the earth. And the world much older than 6000 years too. It doesn't even say in the Bible that the world is 6000 years old, or that man and woman were created 6000 years ago either. We don't know when God created man, it just says God created man, male and female created he them. Nothing about 6000 years. Do you believe the world to be 6000 years old?

 

[2003cobra]

I couldn't say.

Did they make purdy stuff first and then make weapons to protect them?

Purdy bone flutes were made (possibly by Neanderthals) thousands of years before iron was worked.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divje_Babe_Flute

 

[2003cobra]

But but...surely dioramas don't lie?

Stuart

With fundamentalist home schooling curriculum using old Flintstone episodes for history class, we are bound to have an uphill battle getting people to think clearly.

 

[2003cobra]

Well, they have statues and images in the churches and God said have none, not even the likeness of anything in heaven or on earth, they call their ministers father and Jesus says call no man your father on earth you have one father in heaven, they call themselves reverend and right reverend, the only one to be reverenced should be God. Some of them worship Mary, we are told nowhere to worship Mary, they allow gay marriage, yet homosexuality is a sin before God. God says we should not build up our treasures on earth, yet many churches have priceless artifacts and millions in bank accounts, but God said no man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to one and despise the other you can't serve God and mammon (worldly wealth) for we will love one and hate the other.

I was thinking more of the type of things that Jesus taught are important: loving one another, forgiving our brothers, helping the poor and sick, feeding the hungry.

It also appears you may be applying OT laws to believers of Gentile origin who are not under those laws.

When Jesus travelled with the Apostles teaching and healing, they also had a money bag. To give away all the money and have no reserve for unexpected events could be viewed as poor stewardship.

Many get paid for doing God's work and treat it as a paid job. We are to give freely as we receive, we don't share the word of God for payment.

Yet, when Jesus sent the disciples on their journey, He told them to take no money with them but to rely on others.
And the scriptures say a laborer is worthy of his hire.

Jesus was dressed like any other man and shared freely what God gave him and the father gave him the increase, yet many of these ministers wear flowing robes, going higher and higher within their churches with people bowing down the them and reverencing them. God's true servants are unprofitable servants, sent by Christ to do the will of God and bare witness to the truth and they take the humble seat and the low way.

It seems some of this is a judgment on outward appearance. God judges the heart.

In your first paragraph, it appeared the OT was a model for your assessment. The OT priests did have distinctive, fancy clothes.

Now before I get attacked here by anyone for judging, these things are written in the Bible, and I believe it. The way of Jesus is a hard way, and God's people suffer persecution for speaking the truth. Jesus said my yoke is easy and my burden is light, but that means that God strengthens us to overcome when we turn from sin and our hearts are cleansed and this gives us peace in our hearts as long as we live by his will and suffer for Christ's sake, and he didn't put the burdens that the Jewish leaders put on their people. Jesus' way is simple, he showed us how to live and taught us the truth, and we are to follow him and live it in a new and living way before God. God forgives ignorance, but if we know it's wrong and we still do it then as disobedient children we are in danger of being on the receiving end of the wrath of God. But only God knows each of our hearts and he will judge all of us.

I think the judgment should be based less on looks and tradition and more on heart and actions.

 

[Stripe]

The KT boundary that Barbarian mentioned is what I am referencing. You'll never find any mammals other than extinct rodents below it (therapsids, like dimetrodon, not being fully mammalian and therefore don't count. They just look like lizards with sails)

Immediately, we depart from the simple assertion of what fossils are not founds together to a concept that requires us to assume the truth of a raft of evolutionary ideas.

There are many problems with the popularized theory of how the dinos disappeared, the main one being that the physics of the so-called KT boundary don't jive with your explanation of its origin.

A discussion over what fossils are or are not generally found together is difficult enough without having to take into account the disagreements we are going to have over how iridium-rich layers were deposited.

You have a theory of dino disappearance; I have an explanation of dino disappearance. We each have evidence that relies on our respective stories being true. That means when you say stuff like "no people with dinos," it is going to end up being an argument over the story behind your idea, not your idea itself.

What you need to look at are undisputed facts and how they eliminate ideas.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think the blame falls on Bishop James Ussher.

He did not notice the figurative nature of the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

Genesis 4 is a great example. It tells the development of urban life, metallurgy, civil law, and music by matching each to individuals.

Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and named it Enoch after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael the father of Methushael, and Methushael the father of Lamech. 19 Lamech took two wives; the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20 Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who live in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the ancestor of all those who play the lyre and pipe. 22 Zillah bore Tubal-cain, who made all kinds of bronze and iron tools. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. 23 Lamech said to his wives: "Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. 24 If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold." 25 Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, because Cain killed him." 26 To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to invoke the name of the Lord.


Note it skips the copper age and compresses the bronze and iron ages to one person’s lifetime.

People lived several hundred years up until Methuselah and Noah, and then post-flood, lifespans drastically decreased.

Or do you reject Genesis 5 as literal history as well?

If people live several hundred years, wouldn't the equivalent of the Industrial revolution be possible, several times over?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Several of those euphemisms in the OT — I like the one in Genesis 24 when Abraham’s “thigh” was held in an oath.

Actually, The hand under the thigh was an actual way to make an oath or vow.

http://www.yeshiva.co/ask/?id=4798

 

[JudgeRightly]

I believe that God can do anything, if he wanted to create everything in one day (24 hours) then he could.

Of course He could. But He says He did it in 6 days, taking his time with it. ("it was very good")

But I know this earth is much older than 6000 years

And the Bible indicates 10,000 at most, but closer to 6000. So who should I believe, you or the Bible?

and I don't believe that Adam was the first man that existed,

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. - Genesis 3:20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis3:20&version=NKJV

This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. - Genesis 5:1-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis5:1-5&version=NKJV

I believe that the verses in genesis also have deeper meanings.

Most seem pretty literal to me.

I believe a day to God is light, and he does all his work in the day (light) not in the night, (darkness). So a day in the Lord is light. As for the evening and the morning being the first day, God always works from darkness leading into light. Those who belong to God were once in darkness until God put his hand on them and started doing his works. He worked on those who belong to him whilst they were in darkness. We hear the word whilst we are in the dark, the word is light, it is Spirit and life, and then once we hear the voice, and listen and believe and turn to God and start live by his will, he starts to work on our hearts, and in his time he will bless us with his Spirit. And then through revelation we are given the eyes to see and the ears to hear, bringing us to life and into his glorious light and it's all done through Christ. God doesn't leave anyone he puts his hand on in darkness but brings them into the light.

Sounds like mystic gibberish. You sure you're reading from the Bible?

Also, I have heard people say, that God planted dinosaur bones in the ground to make the earth look older,

Not from anyone I know, and certainly not on here.

God doesn't need to do this, he doesn't need to play tricks on anyone.

So then why write the Bible as if it's a history book? God doesn't need to play tricks, so why would you claim the Bible is sleight of hand?

Dinosaurs are very old, much older than 6000 years, they weren't around when humans walked the earth.

Nope. Day 6 of creation. Same day man was made.

And the world much older than 6000 years too.

Nope. Genesis 5, and Genesis 10. We can trace people's lineages back to the people who descended from each of the three families of the sons of Noah who were on the ark, and then can calculate (roughly) how long between Noah and Adam.

It doesn't even say in the Bible that the world is 6000 years old, or that man and woman were created 6000 years ago either. We don't know when God created man, it just says God created man, male and female created he them. Nothing about 6000 years. Do you believe the world to be 6000 years old?

See my previous paragraph. The numbers (as rough as they are in the genealogies) provide a number that ends up between 6 and 10 thousand years, but with a preference towards 6.

See what happens when you reject Genesis?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think the judgment should be based less on looks and tradition and more on heart and actions.

Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” - John 7:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John7:24&version=NKJV

 

[marhig]

I was thinking more of the type of things that Jesus taught are important: loving one another, forgiving our brothers, helping the poor and sick, feeding the hungry.

It also appears you may be applying OT laws to believers of Gentile origin who are not under those laws.

When Jesus travelled with the Apostles teaching and healing, they also had a money bag. To give away all the money and have no reserve for unexpected events could be viewed as poor stewardship.


Yet, when Jesus sent the disciples on their journey, He told them to take no money with them but to rely on others.
And the scriptures say a laborer is worthy of his hire.


It seems some of this is a judgment on outward appearance. God judges the heart.

In your first paragraph, it appeared the OT was a model for your assessment. The OT priests did have distinctive, fancy clothes.


I think the judgment should be based less on looks and tradition and more on heart and actions.

Yes you're right, the things Jesus taught are more important, so when he said call no man your father because you have one father in heaven then I believe him. And I'm not talking about the hearts of the people, as I've said before. But rather how the churches are doing things that God said not to do in the Bible.

 

[marhig]

Of course He could. But He says He did it in 6 days, taking his time with it. ("it was very good")



And the Bible indicates 10,000 at most, but closer to 6000. So who should I believe, you or the Bible?



And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. - Genesis 3:20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis3:20&version=NKJV

This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died. - Genesis 5:1-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis5:1-5&version=NKJV



Most seem pretty literal to me.



Sounds like mystic gibberish. You sure you're reading from the Bible?



Not from anyone I know, and certainly not on here.



So then why write the Bible as if it's a history book? God doesn't need to play tricks, so why would you claim the Bible is sleight of hand?



Nope. Day 6 of creation. Same day man was made.



Nope. Genesis 5, and Genesis 10. We can trace people's lineages back to the people who descended from each of the three families of the sons of Noah who were on the ark, and then can calculate (roughly) how long between Noah and Adam.



See my previous paragraph. The numbers (as rough as they are in the genealogies) provide a number that ends up between 6 and 10 thousand years, but with a preference towards 6.

See what happens when you reject Genesis?

Where does the Bible indicate that the world is 10,000 years old? I've never seen that written anywhere? Or is that just people trying to work out how old the world is?

Man and woman were created before Adam was lifted out of the dust. It's all got a spiritual meaning. As has the whole Bible, there is a natural and a spiritual meaning to the Bible.

It's clear that the world is older than 6000 years old, dinosaurs didn't walk the earth with people, when do you believe that dinosaurs were in this world?

 

[Lon]

Several of those euphemisms in the OT — I like the one in Genesis 24 when Abraham’s “thigh” was held in an oath.

That where YOUR mind went??? :noway:

 

[Bee1]

We don't need gospel tracks or anything other thsn God's Word to determine truth. "In six days, God created the heavens and the earth" Ex. 20:11 We can see from scripture that Jesus and others accepted Genesis as literal history.
Perhaps most important about Genesis is that the gospel is dependent on a literal interpretation. If death existed before first Adam sinned, then the gospel is destroyed and the cross becomes meaningless.

But than if death existed than who or what was death. Right back to square one.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

 

[Greg Jennings]

Immediately, we depart from the simple assertion of what fossils are not founds together to a concept that requires us to assume the truth of a raft of evolutionary ideas.

There are many problems with the popularized theory of how the dinos disappeared, the main one being that the physics of the so-called KT boundary don't jive with your explanation of its origin.

A discussion over what fossils are or are not generally found together is difficult enough without having to take into account the disagreements we are going to have over how iridium-rich layers were deposited.

You have a theory of dino disappearance; I have an explanation of dino disappearance. We each have evidence that relies on our respective stories being true. That means when you say stuff like "no people with dinos," it is going to end up being an argument over the story behind your idea, not your idea itself.

What you need to look at are undisputed facts and how they eliminate ideas.

Stripe, why won't you just answer the question?

It's not that hard: why are there not mammal fossils (other than extinct rodents) below the KT charcoal-like iridium boundary? If they all died at the sane time, they should be found together. Yet they are not

 

[Stripe]

But than if death existed than who or what was death. Right back to square one.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

Hi, Cobra. :wave2:

 

[Stripe]

Why are there not mammal fossils (other than extinct rodents) below the KT charcoal-like iridium boundary?

There are.

If they all died at the sane time, they should be found together. Yet they are not

They are.