where do dinosaurs and cavemen fit into the bible, or does it?

Started by Regret14 pages

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Point one: The Earth is ~ 4 billion years old not 6,000.

Point two: Humans evolved from other apes ~ 5 million years ago, dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Dinosaurs and humans never lived at the same time.

I don't know much about carbon dating, but I have a slightly off-topic question if someone knows.

Would an enormous flood as described in the Noah portion of the Bible impact the accuracy of carbon dating? It seems that the large amount of water required for such a flood would alter the system in some way that may have impacted this.

It also seems scientifically difficult to explain how an event such as this could possibly have occurred. Given this I believe it possible that the flood described could have been limited in scope to the small area that would have been considered by Noah to be the world. If this were the case it would have implications on interpretation of passages of the Bible that use the term "world". It could also alter the interpretation of other terms in that the understanding of the individual speaking in the text could have impacted the meaning of language used in the text similarly in other instances.

I don't really care if it would or not, my beliefs aren't impacted by the possible age of the Earth and its inhabitants, or by the possible alterations in these interpretations.

Originally posted by Regret
I don't know much about carbon dating, but I have a slightly off-topic question if someone knows.

Would an enormous flood as described in the Noah portion of the Bible impact the accuracy of carbon dating? It seems that the large amount of water required for such a flood would alter the system in some way that may have impacted this.

It also seems scientifically difficult to explain how an event such as this could possibly have occurred. Given this I believe it possible that the flood described could have been limited in scope to the small area that would have been considered by Noah to be the world. If this were the case it would have implications on interpretation of passages of the Bible that use the term "world". It could also alter the interpretation of other terms in that the understanding of the individual speaking in the text could have impacted the meaning of language used in the text similarly in other instances.

I don't really care if it would or not, my beliefs aren't impacted by the possible age of the Earth and its inhabitants, or by the possible alterations in these interpretations.

Check this out:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Check this out:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

I actually saw the video of this, I had forgotten about it.

The video left the concept unverified. There was verification that the black sea was in fact freshwater at one point, but was inconclusive as to the rest of the theories.

Originally posted by Regret
I actually saw the video of this, I had forgotten about it.

The video left the concept unverified. There was verification that the black sea was in fact freshwater at one point, but was inconclusive as to the rest of the theories.

I am waiting for them to go down there and make some big find. Maybe Noah's ark. 😂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am waiting for them to go down there and make some big find. Maybe Noah's ark. 😂

😂

My opinion is that there will never be much evidence for religion. If there is it will be a disappointment to the religious people out there.

Originally posted by Regret
😂

My opinion is that there will never be much evidence for religion. If there is it will be a disappointment to the religious people out there.

Only those people who spend their time trying to prove the bible as fact will be disappointed. The people who realize their religion as something inside of their life, will not care.

Originally posted by Regret
I don't know much about carbon dating, but I have a slightly off-topic question if someone knows.

Would an enormous flood as described in the Noah portion of the Bible impact the accuracy of carbon dating? It seems that the large amount of water required for such a flood would alter the system in some way that may have impacted this.

It also seems scientifically difficult to explain how an event such as this could possibly have occurred. Given this I believe it possible that the flood described could have been limited in scope to the small area that would have been considered by Noah to be the world. If this were the case it would have implications on interpretation of passages of the Bible that use the term "world". It could also alter the interpretation of other terms in that the understanding of the individual speaking in the text could have impacted the meaning of language used in the text similarly in other instances.

I don't really care if it would or not, my beliefs aren't impacted by the possible age of the Earth and its inhabitants, or by the possible alterations in these interpretations.

Not really on the Carbon dating front. Contamination is possible, and taken into calculations, but a world wide flood would affect other dating techniques.

And they think they may have found the site of the mythological flood. The Sumerians experience a large amount of flooding that entered into their cultural conscious (but it was just normal flood the likes of which always happen) - they recorded it, excavations reveal a datable silt layer - but it was miles away from being a world drowner, and didn't kill everybody, nor even wipe out the Sumerian culture (that occurred naturally later.) Of course it must be remembered the Sumerians were influential on other cultures that followed - including the Jews. I am inclined to believe that the "great flood" of the bible might in fact be an example of a religion appropriating and adapting another cultures myths.

I am waiting for them to go down there and make some big find. Maybe Noah's ark.

They thought they found that as well, turned out to not be true. And they never will find the Biblical Noah's ark, as it is impossible for such a ship to exist in serving the function it did in those days. There are barely any ships today that could even give the slight impression of holding 2 of every species, and enough food to keep them going for 40 days. Yes, one of the few things I will say is impossible - Noah's ark. A boat carry a family and a few goats perhaps, but unless it is a Tardis there is no way a boat back then could carry even a fraction of the worlds animal life (let alone all the insects and birds and other things.)

Here's another thing to prove that Dinosaurs did in fact live with humans. Go look at every ancient culture and you will find one thing in common with them; they all in one way or another feature a dragon. Now then how could almost all the cultures of old have the same beast? They could not have any contact with one another but yet Japanese, British, Aztec, and some many others have a dragon in their culture.

Also about Carbon dating; how do we know that has been proven correct? In fact this proves that carbon dating is not accurate:

http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/c14/

😆 you're using a geocities page as credible evidence.

Originally posted by Alliance
😆 you're using a geocities page as credible evidence.

And people thought I was harsh for giving him the nut. 😆

It was predestined apparently.

Originally posted by Alliance
😆 you're using a geocities page as credible evidence.

So you are saying that's false? Mind backing up your claim.

I have seen a lot of evidence of the existence of the Ark. Frozen splinters of wood dating from about 4000BC were found on Mt. Arafat and several spy planes have reported seeing a large wooden boat half covered in ice on Mt. Arafat. The Russians supposedly photographed the Ark during WWI, but the photos were supposedly lost in the Revolution.

Did you know there is a alien face on Mars!

Ed. note: In late 2005, a report in TJ provided an update on the scientific appraisal of some of the bones discussed in this article. See John H. Whitmore, ‘Unfossilized’ Alaskan dinosaur bones? TJ 19(3):60.

Most people think that fossil bones (of which the most well-known examples are those of dinosaurs) must be very, very old—because, after all, they have turned to stone, haven’t they?

Even millions of years might, to some, not even seem long enough to allow for natural processes to gradually, molecule by molecule, replace the original substance of the bone with rock minerals.

But this common picture is misleading. A recent book, co-authored by a world expert on dinosaurs, points out some things about dinosaur bones that are of great interest to creationists.

For one thing, it says:

‘Bones do not have to be “turned into stone” to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil.’

Ok, but even if the actual bone is not replaced by rock minerals, some fossil dinosaur bones are rock-hard, and show under the microscope when cut that they have been thoroughly ‘permineralized.’ This means that rock minerals have been deposited into all the spaces within the original bone. Doesn’t this show that the formation of these fossils, at least, must represent a long time? Think again. The same authoritative work also tells us:

‘The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a matter of weeks.’

So even a rock-solid, hard shiny fossil dinosaur bone, showing under the microscope that all available spaces have been totally filled with rock minerals, does not indicate that it necessarily took millions of years to form at all.

Now of course if a dinosaur bone is indeed permineralized, it would give it great protection from the normal processes which cause things such as bone to just naturally ‘fall apart.’ So a permineralized bone might indeed be anything from a few weeks to millions of years old.

However, in a situation where the dinosaur bone has been prevented from being invaded by mineral-rich water, one would expect that over millions of years, even locked away from all bacterial agents, dinosaur bone would, in obeying the laws of thermodynamics, just disintegrate from the random motions of the molecules therein.

There are actually instances, mentioned in the same book, in which dinosaur bones in Alberta, Canada, were encased in ironstone nodules shortly after being buried. We are told:

‘The nodules prevented water from invading the bones, which for all intents and purposes cannot be distinguished from modern bone.’
This is a stunning revelation. Evolutionists are convinced that all dinosaur bones must be at least 65 million years old. Those who take Genesis as real history would predict that no dinosaur bone is more than a few thousand years old, so the existence of such totally unmineralized dinosaur bones that have not disintegrated is perfectly consistent with our expectations.

Let the evolutionist experts writing this book confirm this:

‘An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.’

In summary, therefore:

Most fossil dinosaur bones still contain the original bone.

Even when heavily permineralized (‘fossilized’), this does not need to require more than a few weeks. The Creation/Flood scenario for fossilization would allow many centuries for such permineralization to occur, even under less than ideal conditions.

Where bones have not been protected by permineralization, they are sometimes found in a condition which to all intents and purpose looks as if they are at most centuries, not millions of years old.

The Bible’s account of the true history of the world makes it clear that no fossil can be more than a few thousand years old. Dinosaur bones give evidence strongly consistent with this.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Here's another thing to prove that Dinosaurs did in fact live with humans. Go look at every ancient culture and you will find one thing in common with them; they all in one way or another feature a dragon. Now then how could almost all the cultures of old have the same beast? They could not have any contact with one another but yet Japanese, British, Aztec, and some many others have a dragon in their culture.

Also about Carbon dating; how do we know that has been proven correct? In fact this proves that carbon dating is not accurate:

http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/c14/

The "Dragons" of the ancients are inspired by EXPOSED dinosaur fossils. Since they lack modern scientific knowledge, they let their imagination run wild. They also ERRONEOUSLY assumed that it is from an animal that died recently. This is according to Discovery Channel.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Ed. note: In late 2005, a report in TJ provided an update on the scientific appraisal of some of the bones discussed in this article. See John H. Whitmore, ‘Unfossilized’ Alaskan dinosaur bones? TJ 19(3):60.

Most people think that fossil bones (of which the most well-known examples are those of dinosaurs) must be very, very old—because, after all, they have turned to stone, haven’t they?

Even millions of years might, to some, not even seem long enough to allow for natural processes to gradually, molecule by molecule, replace the original substance of the bone with rock minerals.

But this common picture is misleading. A recent book, co-authored by a world expert on dinosaurs, points out some things about dinosaur bones that are of great interest to creationists.

For one thing, it says:

‘Bones do not have to be “turned into stone” to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil.’

Ok, but even if the actual bone is not replaced by rock minerals, some fossil dinosaur bones are rock-hard, and show under the microscope when cut that they have been thoroughly ‘permineralized.’ This means that rock minerals have been deposited into all the spaces within the original bone. Doesn’t this show that the formation of these fossils, at least, must represent a long time? Think again. The same authoritative work also tells us:

‘The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a matter of weeks.’

So even a rock-solid, hard shiny fossil dinosaur bone, showing under the microscope that all available spaces have been totally filled with rock minerals, does not indicate that it necessarily took millions of years to form at all.

Now of course if a dinosaur bone is indeed permineralized, it would give it great protection from the normal processes which cause things such as bone to just naturally ‘fall apart.’ So a permineralized bone might indeed be anything from a few weeks to millions of years old.

However, in a situation where the dinosaur bone has been prevented from being invaded by mineral-rich water, one would expect that over millions of years, even locked away from all bacterial agents, dinosaur bone would, in obeying the laws of thermodynamics, just disintegrate from the random motions of the molecules therein.

There are actually instances, mentioned in the same book, in which dinosaur bones in Alberta, Canada, were encased in ironstone nodules shortly after being buried. We are told:

‘The nodules prevented water from invading the bones, which for all intents and purposes cannot be distinguished from modern bone.’
This is a stunning revelation. Evolutionists are convinced that all dinosaur bones must be at least 65 million years old. Those who take Genesis as real history would predict that no dinosaur bone is more than a few thousand years old, so the existence of such totally unmineralized dinosaur bones that have not disintegrated is perfectly consistent with our expectations.

Let the evolutionist experts writing this book confirm this:

‘An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.’

In summary, therefore:

Most fossil dinosaur bones still contain the original bone.

Even when heavily permineralized (‘fossilized’), this does not need to require more than a few weeks. The Creation/Flood scenario for fossilization would allow many centuries for such permineralization to occur, even under less than ideal conditions.

Where bones have not been protected by permineralization, they are sometimes found in a condition which to all intents and purpose looks as if they are at most centuries, not millions of years old.

The Bible’s account of the true history of the world makes it clear that no fossil can be more than a few thousand years old. Dinosaur bones give evidence strongly consistent with this.

Quoting someone like Carl Weiland and his Answers in Genesis Ministry wont win you any points on credibility.

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
^^Carl Weiland was FORCED to edit his web page because of this.

Dino-blood and the Young Earth
Dino Blood Redux
^^ This is where the arguments from his books were shot to pieces. Weiland is guilty of contradicting and quoting out of context, the scientists who ACTUALLY did the research. And, IIRC Answers in Genesis is NOT affiliated with any reputable scientific site - museums, universities or other sites devoted to scientific learning.

The problem with Creationists is that they already had decided what the right answer is and is trying to find a way to get there , which is why they spend all their time looking for gaps in scientific knowledge, mainly biology, instead of actually doing positive research of their own. They readily diss radiometric dating as inaccurate even though its scientifically based on geology, chemistry and physics while wholeheartedly accepting the 3000 year old written account of superstitious desert people.

For the record, archaeologist, geologists, biologist etc. use multiple samples and multiple methods when dating fossils and/or rock samples. This is to ensure the accuracy of the dates and also to avoid contamination and/or tampering.

And this is why Flood Geology is teh SUCK (and downright humorous).
Problems With "Flood" Geology

Best quote:

The entire structure of Flood geology is nonscientific and is based directly on the creationists' religious beliefs. Neither are their ideas and proposals new. All can be found described in 19th century literature. They were wrong then,and are still wrong now, because of the geological evidence. Creationist Christian Bible-believing geologists of that period tossed flood geology models overboard for the sound scientific reason that such models were discovered to be completely inconsistent with the physical evidence. They did this despite their religious beliefs, because the evidence was so compelling. There is currently no scientific reason to bring Flood geology back. It has had its day in court. In fact, there is even more evidence falsifying it now than there was one hundred years ago. [Andrew Macrae]

And yet Job points out different creatures that resemble and sound like a Dinosaur.

Job 40:15-24
Behold now behemoth, which I made with three; he eats grass like an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a cedar (a huge tree) the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 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. He lives under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinks up a river, and hastes not: he trusts that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He takes it with his eyes: his nose pierce through snares.

At first sounds like an elephant of hippo but a few things around about that:

1.) Neither has a tail like a cedar tree which is one of the biggest trees
2.) Neither has bones that would be described as bars of iron
3.) "he is the cheif of the ways of God" meaning he is the biggest creature God has made. Sure God has made the hippo and elephant to be big but they are not the biggest.
4.) He drinks up a river. Neither hippo nor elephant can drink up a river.

That leaves to one conclusion that this passage speaks of the Brachiosaurus which has been proven to be the biggest creature ever found on earth (some may be bigger but they are related to the Brachiosaurus)

Originally posted by Alliance
Did you know there is a alien face on Mars!

Yes I did.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes I did.

THAT MUST MEAN THERE ARE ALIENS fear

Untill we figured out it was just a bad picture that a buch of people made crazy sh*t up about.