Me, trying to bait someone ...... never

(damn I have been spotted !!!!)

 

I think you might have a bit of a hard time convincing creationists that birds are related to dinosaurs. Goes against the whole premise of creationism. But it does explain why they weren't on the ark. I mean, after 40 days and nights you're bound to get a bit peckish.

 

LOL, LOL...Funny how somethings never seems to change!

That's why I can't buy the thing about not talking about animals in the Bible because they are unimportant???

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tokyo_james
[B]4.

 

Wow, normally I just check this sight about once a week or so but I figured I would see if there were any responses to my last post. This is a fast moving thread.

Sorry, I never meant to "skirt" the issues, so I will answer these as direct as I can. Here we go.

Yes of course.
Closer to 10,000 I personally think closer to 6,000.
Roughly 10,000 years old.Yes.
The Bible doesn't say that, you would have to show me where.
He did. The Bible says that two of every animal was on the ark. That would mean dinosaurs were there too, perhaps as eggs I'm not sure I wasn't there. But once the waters receded there would not be alot of plant life to support them. They might have been used for food shortly there after also.
Yes.
I think you missed what I was trying to say. It was a rhetorical question. God knew that we would not have dinosaurs walking around today. So if he said behomoth(which is what they called dinosaurs at that time) we would not know what He was talking about. When the Bible mentions sheep, dogs, goats, etc. we do not need a description. My point was God knew we would need a description to know what Job was referring to.
Yes Job 40:15 through the rest of the chapter describes the dinosaur as being a land animal. One sentence does not describe all types of dinosaurs. This is quite a lenghty passage and there are more of them in the Bible I just choose this one. I also only quoted one line or two of the passage not the whole thing. The passage does go into detail but I only mentioned the tail like a cedar because no other animal that I can think of has this characteristic. That is why creationists feel that God is describing a dinosaur, nothing else fits this discription that I know of. God does not need to describe turtles or birds because we know what they are by name. No description is necessary, it does not mean they are less important.
The Bible doesn't list every animal that was present on the ark.
Sorry I can't answer the rest of your questions right now I got to go back to work. I will get back soon though and answer the rest. I promise.

 

Solange Hertz (in an article which contends that the earth is indeed the center of the Universe):


"There are many such passages in the Bible, outstanding among them being, of course, the one relating how Joshua commanded, "Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon," whereupon, "the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies" (Jos.10:12-13). And again, as St. Robert Bellarmine pointed out, the Preacher says," The sun riseth and goeth down and returneth to his place: and there rising again, maketh his round by the south and turneth again to the north" (Eccles. 1:5-6)

"Scripture also specifies that the Earth is immovable in the face of these solar and lunar peregrinations, Psalm 92 stating flatly that God "hath established the world which shall not be moved." Psalm 103 says He has"founded the earth upon its own bases ; it shall not be moved forever and ever," Psalm 95 telling us God has "corrected the world, which shall not be moved." Again, in I Paralipomenon 16:30, "He hath founded the earth immovable," and according to Job 26:7, God by His power"stretched out the north over the empty space and hangeth the earth upon nothing." No less an authority than the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in its commentary on the Creed, states furthermore, "The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation."

 

Like I said previously, you think the Earth is 6K yrs old or 10K old, it is now the year 2000, that leaves 4 - 8K years for the rest of history to have taken place.

You also believe that Man, as we know man today, existed with the dinosaurs. So why did we not find any remains of modern man along with the remains of the dinosaurs that were killed during the Great Flood? We have found remains of primitive man that date the same as dinosaur remains...ie Neaderthal man or whatever species was present then, certainly not modern man.

Okay, if they were eggs, how would they know which to pick? You have to get a male and female to ensure the species survives. Kind of difficult to do when they are not developed.

Also not all dinosaurs were herbivores, with the greatly reduced animal population, it would have been very challenging for carnivores to survived, yet evidence shows that all the existing species of Dinosaurs experienced an abrupt end, carnivore and herbivore alike.

Also, how big was the Ark? I am not looking for a definitive answer here. It had to be huge to house all these animals and the food for all of them for 40 days. They would also need to collect "extra animals" to feed the carnivores in the group. So 2 of each might not have done the trick.

So then why would he not describe the other things we did not know about, such as the physics of the Solar System? Like AusS2000 pointed out, there are plenty of references in the Bible regarding the Earth being the centre of the Solar Systems. Don't forget that the Church prosecuted Galileo for his research because it went against what was in the Bible. We now know Galileo was right.

 

Believing something like that in this day and age is no less preposterous than believing the Sun goes round the Earth or that the Earth is flat. I'm sorry, that's just how it is. You have to ignore every single piece of evidence there is to believe it.

I just spent a day in the Flinders Ranges in South Australia. These mountains were formed about 500 million years ago when sediments laid down in a deep ocean trench known as the Adelaide Geosyncline were raised by tectonic activity. Erosion has exposed layers of sediment now tilted on their sides so that you can follow them in your car for 15km (nearly 10 miles). Those 15km of sediment contain fossils of progressively more complex life starting with bacteria and ending with shelled sea creatures. To suppose that they were laid down and eroded to their present state in 10,000 years is mind bogglingly implausible. You can't possibly go there and look at this and come away without a sense of the enormity of geological time. The mere existence of sedimentary rocks is proof enough. There are no human or dinosaur fossils in those rocks by the way, because the newest of them correspond with the Cambrian Explosion which predates reptiles and mammals. The last of the dinosaurs died at the end of the Cretaceous period some 65 million years ago. The earliest human ancestors are found about 5 million years ago and the earliest modern humans nearly a hundred thousand years ago.

So the Earth is 10,000 years old or less? How about the rest of the Universe? Light travels at a finite speed. We can measure it. The furthest objects we can see are hundreds of millions if not billions of light years away. What we see when we look at them today is what was there hundreds of millions of years ago.

GPS allows us to measure continental drift these days. The speed is only a few centimetres a year at most, and yet all the continents fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. The Hawaiian Archipelago was formed by its tectonic plate moving over a source of volcanic activity below. It's still happening, but it's too slow to happen in a few thousand years. Trace the movement of the plates back to Gondwana or Pangea and you get hundreds of millions of years. The Earth's magnetic field reverses its polarity from time to time. This is captured in sedimentary rocks containing magnetic minerals, giving us an independent clock to measure their age.

Ancient rocks are dated using nuclear decay. This is based on the same physics used to build nuclear power stations and fission bombs. Perhaps it's all wrong. Perhaps we've measured the speed of light wrong by a factor of a few hundred thousand. Perhaps sedimentary rocks don't exist. Perhaps erosion occurs hundreds of thousands of times faster than we observe. Perhaps the fossil record is a lie. Perhaps all of biology, geology and physics is totally wrong. You can't possibly accept that any one of those branches of science is even remotely correct and still maintain that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. You basically have to demand that all of science is wrong. Given what it explains and what practical uses it can be put to that it an outrageous proposition. If the bible didn't say so, do you suppose anyone would even attempt to make a case for the Earth being that young?

 

Good one Naishou! Next you'll be telling us Santa Claus doesn't exist!

 

I'm not that stupid. He brings me presents every year.