Dinosaurs

[mike]

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 those theories are no doubt worth considering, but it does not discount the fact that by scientific measurements and observation of current astronomical phenomena, the light from distant stars appears to have taken far longer than a young age of the universe would allow.

The specific thing you said that I am arguing with is:

The earth only appears to be millions of years old because of preconceived notions of long ages and uniformitarian processes by the viewer.

The way I would rephrase that is:

"The earth appears to be millions of years old, in some cases at least, because of applying scientific measurements and observation of current natural phenomena to past processes."

I think that young earth creationists might be further ahead to simply argue for the miraculous six-day creation of a fully functioning universe with all the appearance of a great age, because taking the biblical creation account literally could lead one to believe this.

[Joy]

I have never met a dinosaur who believes in evolution.

But how many dinosaurs did you interview?
What was the average level of education among the dinosaurs with which you spoke?
Did they actually state that they knew evolution did not happen?
Or is this an argument of silence, as they never actually addressed the topic?

[Joy]

The whole appearance of age argument is kind of funny to me--did Adam have a belly button, etc. No matter if he had been created as an infant, he would still have a body, an appearance of age. Was God tricking us? No, but maybe some groups have an agenda that demands "created" evidence to try to disprove the Bible. Yeah, that's a duh.

[Bootstrap]

I don't think it is helpful to try to construct an alternative scientific theory to justify the Bible. If we do that, then we are basically saying that this theory is proof that we can trust the Bible. And that means we are staking the reliability of the Bible on our scientific arguments. If someone doesn't think your theory makes sense, he will doubt your faith in the Bible.

I think it's better to say that we simply don't know everything. Dinosaurs did exist, the scientific evidence people discuss also exists, there are things that are hard to explain in any theory of creation.

I'm sure scientists don't know everything. I'm also not convinced that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are meant to be a scientific explanation of creation. I think they are mostly about who God is, his reign over the universe he created, who humans are, and how we lost out on what God had originally planned for us. If it was meant to be taken that literally, I don't understand how the sequence of events works.

• Genesis 1 says that God created animals (1st part of day 6), then Adam and Eve (2d part of day 6).
• Genesis 2 says that God created Adam, then animals, then Eve.

That makes me think that the details of how God made the universe aren't what this is about. I don't think the Bible answers all the questions I have about origins. I don't think scientists do either.

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

I know God created the heavens and earth. I know that I don't know a whole lot else. Dinosaurs don't change that much.

[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 those theories are no doubt worth considering, but it does not discount the fact that by scientific measurements and observation of current astronomical phenomena, the light from distant stars appears to have taken far longer than a young age of the universe would allow.

The specific thing you said that I am arguing with is:

The earth only appears to be millions of years old because of preconceived notions of long ages and uniformitarian processes by the viewer.

The way I would rephrase that is:

"The earth appears to be millions of years old, in some cases at least, because of applying scientific measurements and observation of current natural phenomena to past processes."

I think that young earth creationists might be further ahead to simply argue for the miraculous six-day creation of a fully functioning universe with all the appearance of a great age, because taking the biblical creation account literally could lead one to believe this.

I agree for the most part with your rephrase. I might modify it slightly to this:

"The earth appears to be millions of years old, to some observers at least, because of applying scientific measurements and observation of current natural phenomena to past processes."

[Fidelio]

I have never met a dinosaur who believes in evolution.

But how many dinosaurs did you interview?
What was the average level of education among the dinosaurs with which you spoke?
Did they actually state that they knew evolution did not happen?
Or is this an argument of silence, as they never actually addressed the topic?

My dog does not believe in evolution.

[Fidelio]

The whole appearance of age argument is kind of funny to me--did Adam have a belly button, etc. No matter if he had been created as an infant, he would still have a body, an appearance of age. Was God tricking us? No, but maybe some groups have an agenda that demands "created" evidence to try to disprove the Bible. Yeah, that's a duh.

Good question and perhaps not, since he did not have an umbilical cord, being formed a fully functioning adult in what we would refer to as the prime-of-life.

[Fidelio]

I don't think it is helpful to try to construct an alternative scientific theory to justify the Bible. If we do that, then we are basically saying that this theory is proof that we can trust the Bible. And that means we are staking the reliability of the Bible on our scientific arguments. If someone doesn't think your theory makes sense, he will doubt your faith in the Bible.

I think it's better to say that we simply don't know everything. Dinosaurs did exist, the scientific evidence people discuss also exists, there are things that are hard to explain in any theory of creation.

I'm sure scientists don't know everything. I'm also not convinced that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are meant to be a scientific explanation of creation. I think they are mostly about who God is, his reign over the universe he created, who humans are, and how we lost out on what God had originally planned for us. If it was meant to be taken that literally, I don't understand how the sequence of events works.

• Genesis 1 says that God created animals (1st part of day 6), then Adam and Eve (2d part of day 6).
• Genesis 2 says that God created Adam, then animals, then Eve.

That makes me think that the details of how God made the universe aren't what this is about. I don't think the Bible answers all the questions I have about origins. I don't think scientists do either.

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

I know God created the heavens and earth. I know that I don't know a whole lot else. Dinosaurs don't change that much.

We must always make sure we are not having faith in creation science. I see the purpose of creation science is to show that the evidence can be explained in a creation world view and one does not simply have to accept evolution. Genesis is history, not science, but insofar as it is history it should be consistent with science. Do we reinterpret the Bible to fit secular, atheistic science or do we take the Bible straight forward for what it says? Definitely there is a lot we don't know and all our creation science theories may go out the window tomorrow.

As a side note, I was a firm believer in evolution and several years into college before I was born again. When God worked a new life in me, I immediately threw out all evolution as wrong. This was before I ever saw any materials form a creationist perspective. The only thing I knew about creation at that time was that the media portrayed creationists as wackos and I would have agreed with that before I was born again. I did study evolution a lot and pondered the mysteries of monkeys evolving into men. To me, a newborn Christian, evolution was a total contradiction to my newfound faith. It still is today.

[Neto]

I have never met a dinosaur who believes in evolution.

But how many dinosaurs did you interview?
What was the average level of education among the dinosaurs with which you spoke?
Did they actually state that they knew evolution did not happen?
Or is this an argument of silence, as they never actually addressed the topic?

My dog does not believe in evolution.

I once explained the basics of the theory of evolution to the Banawa (the Amazon tribe with whom we lived for 17 years). I would probably have never mentioned it to them, but it was so totally opposite from their traditional beliefs that I thought their response to it would be interesting. (They thought it was hilarious.) You see, their traditional beliefs were based on what their ancestors could observe, and they saw devolution, people getting worse & worse, more animal like (in their minds). There was a tribe that used to live nearby (until they killed all of them) who were cannibals. They were conflicted as to whether they were human or not, because some of their criteria for 'humanness" indicated that they were animals (mainly cannibalism), and other criteria (language, for instance) indicated that they were human. When asked, they were obviously unsure, because they would go back & forth on their answer, even in the same conversation. (Their traditional stories include many which explain how each specific species of animals came to be, humans changing into animals, because those individuals began to exhibit more and more animal characteristics.)

[ken_sylvania]

I don't think it is helpful to try to construct an alternative scientific theory to justify the Bible. If we do that, then we are basically saying that this theory is proof that we can trust the Bible. And that means we are staking the reliability of the Bible on our scientific arguments. If someone doesn't think your theory makes sense, he will doubt your faith in the Bible.

I think it's better to say that we simply don't know everything. Dinosaurs did exist, the scientific evidence people discuss also exists, there are things that are hard to explain in any theory of creation.

I'm sure scientists don't know everything. I'm also not convinced that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are meant to be a scientific explanation of creation. I think they are mostly about who God is, his reign over the universe he created, who humans are, and how we lost out on what God had originally planned for us. If it was meant to be taken that literally, I don't understand how the sequence of events works.

• Genesis 1 says that God created animals (1st part of day 6), then Adam and Eve (2d part of day 6).
• Genesis 2 says that God created Adam, then animals, then Eve.

That makes me think that the details of how God made the universe aren't what this is about. I don't think the Bible answers all the questions I have about origins. I don't think scientists do either.

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

I know God created the heavens and earth. I know that I don't know a whole lot else. Dinosaurs don't change that much.

Looks to me like because you don't have a logical explanation about how the sequence of events work, you doubt the narrative. Maybe if someone could explain scientifically and logically how the two fit together it would help restore your faith in the Word.....