I’ll let José (er, Joe) translate his posts, but they were basically a cute description about the possibility of Noah dealing with dinosaurs.  My replies can easily be translated by looking up Genesis 7:13-15 (all creatures on the ark), and Mark 10:27 (with God all things are possible).

My German post basically told Mark, "Maybe not..."

Señor Retread

Brian, you make some good arguements.  I respect that.
In response:  
What I gave to be the representation of evolutionist arguement and belief may indeed be incorrect, as you pointed out.  I am going off of what I have heard so far from people who believe in evolution.  If you have a better, more accurate definition, please do share.
However, what I stated is being taught in public schools today.  If someone wants to believe that, that's their perogative, but it should not be taught as doctorine in public schools using taxpayer money.  
Also, I could show you many articles and other such documentation that does show that many scientists who have the evolutionistic religious beliefs that I stated do reason in the "numb-skullish" way of circular-logic that I summarized.  In other words it is not a straw man argument, but a real-life scientists-do-believe-this-way-today statement of fact.  
However, if there is a stronger arguement out there, please do tell so that we may see it and understand what the best support for this theory is.

As far as dating by radioactive decay, there are many flaws to this method, as well as many counter-examples that prove that it is not a valid measure of the age of rocks.  Same problems for radiocarbon dating for living things.  e.g. Living animals have been testing by radiocarbon dating methods and found to be thousands of years old - an obvious error. Some parts of one dead animal will test to be thousands of years different in age than other parts of the same animal.  

Here is one quote from the American Journal of Science regarding radiometric dating and the geologic column:

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first."
--O'Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54

The geologic column is to evolutionists similar to what the Bible is to creationists.

My take on it is that both the notion that God created the universe in 6 days and that the universe came about via the Big Bang are religions.  The scientific evidence is not conclusive either way, though I suggest it strongly shows the former.  

The fact that most scientists hold to the latter does not make it fact, but only shows that they have been indoctrinated to first believe in the Big Bang and then do their scientific work.  
However, there are many scientists who do not beleive in the Big Bang and also do their scientific work.  

I find it also interesting that many seminaries are teaching their students to hold to the theory of evolution, in one form or another, and very few are teaching the litteral six-day creation view.  

Joe wrote,

"Los Dinosauros son muy terrible..."

Joe, what you are saying here is that the dinosaurs ARE very terrible.

That leaves us with two possibilities;

1. Joe is a closet disciple of Kent Hovind and thinks that dinosaurs are hiding in the lakes of New Guinea, being sneaked food from the local McDonalds by Bigfoot and his kids.

2. Joe has been spending time out in the warehouse talking to Jose the forklift driver, and is still working on his Spanish verbs.  (or at least needs to).

Actually I'm sure they were very terrible...especially when they had to release a little digestive gas in the confines of the ark on rainy nights when the window was closed.

What is the solution to this very deep mystery?

Thomas Maddux

I think Joe is on to something.

dinosaur = deinos + sauros  (Greek)
deinos = monstrous or terrible
sauros = lizard

Terrible lizards, heh, you got it Joe.   Used to be called dragons.  

Tom----

Thanks for the correction of my Spanish--you are absolutely correct---I meant to say "were" terrible but made the inference that they "are" terrible.

Concerning what you said about the dinosaurs and releasing those digestive gasses--imagine what would have become of the ark if someone mistakenly lit a match!

--Joe

Arthur,

I don't know if you are serious here or not.  I do know that "Dr." Kent Hovind spreads the idea that Medieval legends of dragons are really talking about dinosaurs.  

He claims that the large nasal cavaties found in the Duck Billed Dinosaur were for mixing chemicals to make their breath burn with fire.  However, absolutely no evidence is offered for this, other than the claim itself.  

The biggest problem with this whole idea is that all these stories are just stories.  The fact that stories about knights killing dragons existed, doesn't say anything at all about whether dragons actually existed.  

I teach Medieval History, and have had an interest in the period for years, ever since I had a really great professor in college that turned me on to it. Although I am not an expert, I think it is worthy of notice that  I have never read or heard of a document
that purported to actually be a true account of someone encountering/fighting/killing a dragon.  

Boewulf comes to mind, but again, that is just a story.  No one really believes Boewulf, Grindel, or his big nasty momma, or the dragon were real.  It is a fireside tale.

Just because Rapunzel had hair someone could use to climb a tower in a story, is in no way evidence that anyone ever actually did this.  

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

Arthur me lad,

I will now begin to answer your questions about my views on creation.  But first a few observations on the way you and many other YEC's use the Bible.

Quite frankly, you don't seem to understand the difference between revelation and theology.

Revelation, for Christians, is the text of the original manuscripts.
Theology is our way of organizing, systematizing, and interpreting revelation.   Because of this two people can both believe that God has spoken through the authors of scripture, but have very different understandings of what it means.

Here is an example:

Psalm 19:1-6.  "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.  Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.  There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard.  Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their utterances to the end of the world.  
In them He has placed a tent for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;  It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.  Its rising is from one end of the heavens,k and its circuit to the other end of them; there is nothing hid from its heat."

In verse 4 of this psalm we encounter a startling statement; God keeps the sun in a tent!  Then it goes on to say the sun has attributes of personhood!  It rejoices!  Then it goes on to say that it makes a circuit around the heavens, and that it shines on EVERYTHING.

Arthur, one way to INTERPRET this verse is to say, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"  If anyone says that the sun doesn't go around the earth, or that God doesn't keep it in a tent at night, well he just doesn't believe the
B-I-B-L-E!  

However, most people, and if I'm right you as well, don't say this.  Instead they say something like, "This passage speaks poetically and phenomenologically."  The sun is being described in poetic language from a phenomenological viewpoint...based on what it APPEARS to be doing to the observer.   This does not mean that they don't believe the B-I-B-L-E.

Look how a couple of pretty highly thought of folks have committed blunders of this nature in the past.

1. Augustin-"But as to the fable that there are antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, THAT IS ON NO GROUND CREDIBLE...for scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended fromn that one first man"..., (Adam).

Here you have Augustine denying the world-wide spread of mankind because the Bible doesn't mention these people or continents.  If the Bible doesn't say it, it can't be true...that is his position.  Bad theology producing bad science.

2. Martin Luther-"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon...This fool Copernicus wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tellss us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth."

What an incredible idea!  The sun goes around the earth.  Doesn't the Bible say, "O sun, stand thou still over Gibeon, O moon over the valley of Aijalon.  So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies"?

Do you believe the sun goes around the earth, Arthur?  If you don't, I know why.

It is because there is overwhelming evidence of a heliocentric solar system.  Virtually no one doubts that Copernicus was right.  

What Luther was doing was using bad theology to criticize good science.   Most, if not all, modern readers of the Bible use good science to achieve good theology, when appropriate.  This is just one example among many of phenomenological speech in the Bible.   It is modern science that has shown us this!

I have never met a YEC that agreed with Luther.  They believe that the earth goes around the sun, just as the "evolutionists" do.  There are several ways God could have worked this miracle, but the sun can't stop going around the earth simply because it DOESN'T revolve around the earth.

It is inconsistent to criticize others for doing what you yourself allow.

Now, remember that I pointed out that in Genesis 8:5 it says that the tops of the mountians were visible.  Then in 8:9 it says that the dove came back because there was no place to land, because "the water was on the surface of all the earth".  

First it says the mountain tops were visible, then it says they were covered with water!  Contradiction?  I don't believe so Arthur.  It is just another example of phenomenological language in the Bible.  The dove couldn't see the distant hilltops.  

Now on to other things in a later post.

Thomas Maddux

I think that you do not understand me or where I'm coming from, and I think that is improper to make such an accusation or summarization until you do.  I apologized for making similar accusations in the Egyptian Mythology thread.  I see you responded in kind.  I'm sorry for starting with such comments.  Please forgive me.  I hope that we can end that type of talk and continue on with our mutual endeavor to find the truth.  

As I've written in some posts in this thread and in the Egyptian
Mythology thread, I understand that the Bible contains both literal and symbolic information.  God uses similies, metaphors, puns, analogies, poetry, etc.  throughout the Bible. Sometimes what is written is to be taken as literal, sometimes not.  When we read to understand what is being said, taking into account the context of the passage, we'll know how the words were intended to be taken.  Though there may be some passages that one may read one way, whereas another person may be convinced that it is to be taken another way.   That is just part of being human--we do not all see it the same way, it is the weakness of being finite and limited.  However, I believe the truth is firm and not dependant upon anyone's view of it.
It would be arrogant and foolish of me to claim that I know the truth completely and fully and that everyone else is wrong.  I hope that I have not given that impression.  What I mean to say, and I hope I'll say it now as clearly as possible, is that I believe that the Bible states the truth.  And I want to understand what it is saying because I want to know the truth.

As far as the Gen 1 account, I do not believe that it is poetry or a metaphor or any other such thing.  I believe it is literal.  I know that you and I had a similar discussion regarding the geneology in Matt, versus the accounts given in Genesis and I Chron.  As I pointed out then, the account in Matt. does not include years, whereas the account in Genesis does.  The accounts of Genesis and I Chron. agree.   In Matt, the point is made about fourteen generations--skipping some and including others.  I think that this shows that the author is giving the geneology to document to the Jews the perfection of Jesus' earthly, royal lineage.   Given all these facts, I conclude that God is being literal when he gives the account in Genesis, and not literal in the geneology in Matt.  
Is that not a logical way of looking at it, perhaps I am missing something?  You did not respond to that post, perhaps you could now as to whether or not my take on it is accurate.


Ok, I see your point here, Tom, and it is a good one.  I don't think that I have turned my back on science in believing what I do.  I think science is fun, and I've had a few physics classes, a chemistry class, some calculus, differential equations and linear algebra at the university.  I wouldn't say that I'm a science-illiterate, but not a pro either. I did notice when I was at college that many professors were caught up in how they saw things and thought they were all-that-and-a-bucket-of-chicken, and if you had a good question that might show what they said to be false, they'd make it seem like you were the stupid one and they were the smart one.  Reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes, except they listened to the boy in that story.  And then there were the Liberal Arts professors.  Man were they loony.  They had us read books by people who committed suicide after they died, so that we might be "enlightened" by their great thinking.  
I guess what I'm saying is that so-called "higher" education can mess a person up and/or make him proud if they don't have a solid foundation in the Lord.
But I digress.
Science is a good tool if used properly.
All of the major branches of science were founded by creationists.   I'm just saying that:
-scientists don't have all the answers
-what they say should not be taken as the gospel truth
-they'll probably find out their wrong about many things in just another few years just like the last few years
-scientists are not objective.
Rather all approach their studies with pre-conceived ideas and as such as prone to
1. neglecting important data because it didn't fit with their understanding
2. skewed data
3. incorrect conclusions based on their data.

Now, please, I'm not saying that all scientists are evil or that they intentionally produce bad findings to confound Bible-believers.  I'm just saying, how can we trust everything that is published?  My stance is that I believe th Bible first, and then measure everything else that is written by the Bible.  The question then is what does the Bible say and how to take it--as literal or not.
Ok, now your arguement is that there are things that are common knowledge in the science community that I seem to be brazenly disregarding.  Very well, let's go through them point by point.  I am not a scientist (i.e. I do not do research for a living), and I doubt you are either (what do you do for a living, btw?  I'm a computer guy).  But we'll look at each one and hope to find the truth about each.  

You would agree, would you not, that there have been as many if not far more scientists than theologians who have believed something and then found out they were wrong.  A practical example.  MD's opinions over the past 50 years or so have changed from "lay your baby on its back", then "no, lay your baby on its stomach" then "no, lay your baby on its back" again.  Also, "breast-feeding is good", then "no breast-feeding is bad", then "no, breast-feeding is good" again.

In your generation, evolution and the Big Bang were all the rage.  Most kids started being heavily taught evolution, with the curriculum actively rejecting creationism, in the early 60's.  Today, some secular scientists are saying that no, the Big Bang couldn't have happened, nor evolution as is taught in schools, esp. the origin of the species.  Some consider these theories as laughable now, as laughable as thinking the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth.  



Well, Tom, reading the flood passage, I don't see how you think that it was a local flood (that is what you are saying, right).  And I wrote a post that included many other verses in the Bible that support the fact that it was a world-wide flood that is being described in Genesis.  

Arthur