Dinosaurs

[Fidelio]

Better yet, here is a chapter (13 pages) titled, How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf

It discusses these questions:

• If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them?
• Did God create light in transit?
• Was the speed of light faster in the past?
• Does this have anything to do with the big bang?
• What about Relativity?

[Soloist]

Better yet, here is a chapter (13 pages) titled, How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf

It discusses these questions:

• If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them?
• Did God create light in transit?
• Was the speed of light faster in the past?
• Does this have anything to do with the big bang?
• What about Relativity?

All of these are highly speculative and we basically have a few approaches to look at.

God made the starlight from distant dead stars
We don't understand relativity at all
speed of light changes
the stars are closer (flat earth argument)

Now if you want to literally argue for any of these, the stars are closer make the most sense from a literal reading of the Scripture.
The way we know the distance is based on parallax measurements as far as I know and this actually supports a heliocentric model.

How old was Adam?
If God created science showing a steady rate of decay of isotopes... Why do we have to approach this from it can't say what we see? why do we have to argue for differing models that make less sense than God making an aged earth instantly?

[Fidelio]

Better yet, here is a chapter (13 pages) titled, How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf

It discusses these questions:

• If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them?
• Did God create light in transit?
• Was the speed of light faster in the past?
• Does this have anything to do with the big bang?
• What about Relativity?

All of these are highly speculative and we basically have a few approaches to look at.

So also is evolution highly speculative, but it gets momentum from being told over and over and over until people think it is true.

The relativity of time is not speculative but has been shown experimentally. It's application to the creation account is speculative but not pure dreaming. Rather, it is applied with scientific theory to construct a possible scenario.

The only account that is 100% reliable is the Bible and it clearly says the whole creation came to be by the Word of God in six days. The geneologies hardly allow for much more than about 6000 years. If we don't believe the Genesis account, what basis do we have to believe the rest of the Bible?

In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This, of course, is the basis for our seven-day week—six days of work and one day of rest. Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation Week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

We should also note the way Jesus treated as historical fact the accounts in the Old Testament, which religious and atheistic skeptics think are unbelievable mythology. These historical accounts include Adam and Eve as the first married couple (Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:3–9), Abel as the first prophet who was killed (Luke 11:50–51), Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:38–39), Moses and the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14), Moses and the manna from heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness (John 6:32–33, 49), the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28–32), the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), the miracles of Elijah (Luke 4:25–27), and Jonah and the big fish (Matthew 12:40–41). As New Testament scholar John Wenham has compellingly argued, Jesus did not allegorize these accounts but took them as straightforward history, describing events that actually happened just as the Old Testament describes.2 Jesus used these accounts to teach His disciples that the events of His death, Resurrection, and Second Coming would likewise certainly happen in time-space reality.

These passages taken together strongly imply that Jesus took Genesis 1 as literal history describing creation in six 24-hour days.

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-cr ... eral-days/

[HondurasKeiser]

The only account that is 100% reliable is the Bible and it clearly says the whole creation came to be by the Word of God in six days. The geneologies hardly allow for much more than about 6000 years. If we don't believe the Genesis account, what basis do we have to believe the rest of the Bible?

Hans Boersma, writing in First Things just this morning has an interesting article on this very topic and St. Augustine's read of the Genesis account. I doubt you'll find it convincing, I simply offer it as a response to your question as posed.

I am not sure what to make of Augustine’s complex trio of eternal ideas, created seminal principles, and material creation. He feels strongly about the framework, rhetorically trying to overpower any possible literalist reader of Genesis 1 who might be tempted to disagree. Whatever we may make of his exegesis, it makes more sense to me than a fundamentalism that ends up with a god who takes a break after a productive week. (I also think that the way Saint Augustine solves the paradox of God resting-yet-working is ingenious and thought-provoking.)

Mostly, I like Augustine’s resolution because it underscores, at one and the same time, divine transcendence and divine immanence. In fact, for Augustine, God is transcendent precisely in his immanence.

What I mean is this: Modern understandings of creation are Manichaean in propensity. Whether fundamentalist (literal) or liberal (mythological), modern readers typically agree: The word day must be a 24-hour period; the created contents must be the material world. Such an approach guarantees transcendence (of a sort): God as a being who makes other beings, completely separate from himself. The result is transcendence at the cost of immanence.

[MaxPC]

Do you ever get asked this?
What do you say?

It seems like a 'gotcha' question coming from 'the world'.

I agree. It’s become a game of gotcha among the secularistic for the same reasons that people in groups try to marginalize anyone: self-identification as the smartest and coolest group by pointing out how stupid or backward someone else is. Those high school lunchroom groups never change except they’re older and have more wrinkles. Hopefully Christians avoid that kind of immaturity but it does take a diligent kind of discipleship that honestly looks at one’s own behaviors.

As to what to answer I think Robert summed it up perfectly:

Yes. Dinosaurs did exist. I see no reason for God to trick everyone to make it look like the world existed for millions/billions of years, only to have done it all in 10,000. Creation reveals God, not a set creation narrative.

[Bootstrap]

I have never met a dinosaur who believes in evolution.

[Neto]

I have never met a dinosaur who believes in evolution.

I have been wondering if anyone realized I was talking about what we called "horny toads" when I said I couldn't recall having seen one since I was 17. They are (were?) somewhat like tiny dinosaurs. I mentioned that age because I remember where I was when I saw one stand off against a full-sized dog. I think he (the dog) had messed with one before that, because he was not having any of it. The horny toad was hissing like crazy, and reared up as though he was going to attack the dog, who was towering over him. It was hilarious to watch, really.

[Valerie]

Do you ever get asked this?
What do you say?

It seems like a 'gotcha' question coming from 'the world'.

I agree. It’s become a game of gotcha among the secularistic for the same reasons that people in groups try to marginalize anyone: self-identification as the smartest and coolest group by pointing out how stupid or backward someone else is. Those high school lunchroom groups never change except they’re older and have more wrinkles. Hopefully Christians avoid that kind of immaturity but it does take a diligent kind of discipleship that honestly looks at one’s own behaviors.

As to what to answer I think Robert summed it up perfectly:

Yes. Dinosaurs did exist. I see no reason for God to trick everyone to make it look like the world existed for millions/billions of years, only to have done it all in 10,000. Creation reveals God, not a set creation narrative.

Thank you Max, I have similar observations of the groups and why. When your master is not Jesus- somehow deep within I believe God puts into us a faith in the True & Living God- (well Scripture supports that!) but when we have not surrendered to Him, we want to believe those who would justify doubt in His existence and this is one of those ways-
I agree that there is no reason for God to trick everyone.

Is there a reason the father of lies has to trick everyone? (it is called, deception)
Just throwing that out there- because I know good and well the enemy of our soul has good reason to trick everyone, after all he & his realm have always been very cunning on how they lead people away from Truth and they do have an agenda in doing so.

[Valerie]

I have never met a dinosaur who believes in evolution.

I have been wondering if anyone realized I was talking about what we called "horny toads" when I said I couldn't recall having seen one since I was 17. They are (were?) somewhat like tiny dinosaurs. I mentioned that age because I remember where I was when I saw one stand off against a full-sized dog. I think he (the dog) had messed with one before that, because he was not having any of it. The horny toad was hissing like crazy, and reared up as though he was going to attack the dog, who was towering over him. It was hilarious to watch, really.

Wow- I had no idea what you meant and never saw anything like that!

Thank you everyone for your replies and links to do further research- I have a simple faith but when you come in contact with those who have so much scientific knowledge, I feel my simple faith is not a 'match', not that it has to be, but I do feel there is good reason for ministries like the Creation Science teams who are, a type of apologetics, aren't they?

[Neto]

Valerie, I agree that faith is the correct approach, not feeling that we need to rewrite our 'doctrine of creation' each time a new scientific discovery is made, followed by the scientist's theory about what it means, or what it tells us about what they call pre-history.

I posted a link to a video discussion about Darwinism between several scientists several weeks ago, at the bottom of page 17 of the thread on Evolution. I don't think anyone commented on it, but it was very interesting to me. (It is long, around 50 minutes, as I recall.)