Dinasours

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

Yeah, let's flip off the light switch to dispel the darkness.

CK, That sounds like a "Bushism" to me.

". . . dispel the darkness"?

Emma

[Guest Yediyd]

[Snow]

does any one have any explanations as to those big lizzards called the dinosours. when and what happened? did they not fit on the ark or something. I have a couple of these questions. I try not to let them interfer with my testimony but it would sure be nice to dismiss them once and for all.

I sure that a number of people have already answered this - but when do you think the flood (if there was a flood) and when do you think dinosaurs lived?

[a-train]

Carbon dating as a whole rests on a totally unrpoven theory that the radioactive decay of isotope carbon-14 can be assigned a 'constant' which is actually an 'exponential decay'. We have the same problem with this assertion as we do with all dating, nobody has been alive long enough to have witnessed the event and assure it's age. An unusual radioactive event could have accelerated decay (which is actually admitted by our science community and 'calibrated' for). Any number of things could have happened. We simply don't know.

-a-train

[Traveler]

It is not just a question of carbon dating - all methods of radioactive dating yields the same result. The dinasours leaved over one hundred million years ago. Modern man can only be traced with in 100,000 years ago. If there is an error you are talking about a 90% error and nothing to calibrate it beyond wishfull thinking.

The Traveler

[Snow]

Carbon dating as a whole rests on a totally unrpoven theory that the radioactive decay of isotope carbon-14 can be assigned a 'constant' which is actually an 'exponential decay'. We have the same problem with this assertion as we do with all dating, nobody has been alive long enough to have witnessed the event and assure it's age. An unusual radioactive event could have accelerated decay (which is actually admitted by our science community and 'calibrated' for). Any number of things could have happened. We simply don't know.

-a-train

While true that it's a theory you sound as if your trying to say that the science behind dating techniques is merely a guess and not any more likely to be true than any other date - like say a 7000 year old earth... and that simply is not so.

Dating techniques are widely recognized and accepted as valid by credible scientist and often rejected by the least qualified lay people who would rather believe a rather narrow interpretation of 3000 year old anonymous authors than the worlds's best scientists.

<div class='quotemain'> Yed,

I'm just a dumb hillbilly.

That's two

you haven't been around in a day or two...I think I'm up to about 20 or so......

Read the Disneyland thread if you REALLY want to start counting.

I think you have a real persecution complex. I could be mistaken but I think the hillbilly remarks where directed towards those with outdates sensibilties towards the races.

... but if it makes you feel better to play the victim... by all means....

[Guest Yediyd]

Um...it was a joke between Dr. T and I regarding the amount of times I put MYSELF down...

...it had nothing to do with you, let me say this again...

That post had nothing to do with you.

Chill.

[a-train]

I have no problem with a billion year old earth, etc. etc. I just have a problem with the notion that Carbon Dating has somehow proven something. The dinosaur fossils could be billions of years older than the scientists believe for all we know. Really all we can demonstrate is relative age and this is still only based on the idea that carbon levels would have been similar in creatures dying a great deal of time apart from one another (another good, but unproven theory).

Is a 'Dinasour' a new candy or something?

-a-train

[Snow]

I have no problem with a billion year old earth, etc. etc. I just have a problem with the notion that Carbon Dating has somehow proven something. The dinosaur fossils could be billions of years older than the scientists believe for all we know. Really all we can demonstrate is relative age and this is still only based on the idea that carbon levels would have been similar in creatures dying a great deal of time apart from one another (another good, but unproven theory).

Is a 'Dinasour' a new candy or something?

-a-train

Sure, dinosaurs could be billions of years older (they only came of the scene 230 millions of years ago) and maybe the world doesn't really exist and it is just a figment of our imagination.

It's not likely and tons and tons of science from the world's best scientists say otherwise but it's possible.

[musashi]

i want to try a dina-sour. my mouth is puckering just thinking about em

[the Ogre]

i want to try a dina-sour. my mouth is puckering just thinking about em

Big lizard burgers, mmmmm... yummy.

Seriously though; one of the fun things about the scriptures regarding evolution is that G-d never left detailed descriptions of how the Earth was created other then to say: "I did it!" H- only left a statement of fact. It is then up to believe it. The scriptures, including the various creations accounts included therein are only texts of faith, not science.

I like evolution (it's funny mostly) and recognize that it is constantly changing as scientists continue to explore how it all came to be. Now let's see; Noah lived only a few thousand years ago and the dinosaurs died out (smushed by a big space rock) a bunch-a thousand years ago. I don't think Noah had the chance to put them aboard or other wise he would have built a bigger boat.

Aaron the Ogre

[musashi]

yeah but then again god didnt say to noah get two of every creature except for the big ones. unless they were too evil to listen to noah's admonition to get in the ark. in that case they would have got what they deserved.

[the Ogre]

yeah but then again god didnt say to noah get two of every creature except for the big ones. unless they were too evil to listen to noah's admonition to get in the ark. in that case they would have got what they deserved.

Dude,

And some those guys (like the evil sounding Utah-raptor) just looked like they would be naughty.

Aaron the Ogre

[mk2_gti]

<div class='quotemain'>

i want to try a dina-sour. my mouth is puckering just thinking about em

Big lizard burgers, mmmmm... yummy.

Seriously though; one of the fun things about the scriptures regarding evolution is that G-d never left detailed descriptions of how the Earth was created other then to say: "I did it!" H- only left a statement of fact. It is then up to believe it. The scriptures, including the various creations accounts included therein are only texts of faith, not science.

I like evolution (it's funny mostly) and recognize that it is constantly changing as scientists continue to explore how it all came to be. Now let's see; Noah lived only a few thousand years ago and the dinosaurs died out (smushed by a big space rock) a bunch-a thousand years ago. I don't think Noah had the chance to put them aboard or other wise he would have built a bigger boat.

Aaron the Ogre

I would actually like to know if everyone actually believes that Noah was able to gather 2 of every living thing on the planet, and if so, how do you explain this "impossible" feat.....heck, just looking at the bugs in my garden makes me wonder.

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

i want to try a dina-sour. my mouth is puckering just thinking about em

Big lizard burgers, mmmmm... yummy.

Seriously though; one of the fun things about the scriptures regarding evolution is that G-d never left detailed descriptions of how the Earth was created other then to say: "I did it!" H- only left a statement of fact. It is then up to believe it. The scriptures, including the various creations accounts included therein are only texts of faith, not science.

I like evolution (it's funny mostly) and recognize that it is constantly changing as scientists continue to explore how it all came to be. Now let's see; Noah lived only a few thousand years ago and the dinosaurs died out (smushed by a big space rock) a bunch-a thousand years ago. I don't think Noah had the chance to put them aboard or other wise he would have built a bigger boat.

Aaron the Ogre

I would actually like to know if everyone actually believes that Noah was able to gather 2 of every living thing on the planet, and if so, how do you explain this "impossible" feat.....heck, just looking at the bugs in my garden makes me wonder. Here's the kicker...he only gathered two of the UNCLEAN beast, of the CLEAN beast, he gathered them by sevens....and Yes, I DO believe it...

[sixpacktr]

Here's the kicker...he only gathered two of the UNCLEAN beast, of the CLEAN beast, he gathered them by sevens....and Yes, I DO believe it...

Hey Yed,

One thing to consider, which is lost on most people that blindly follow what scientists, or celebs, or the guy down the street say, is that perhaps, PERHAPS, the Lord commanded Noah to gather a main type of each group which then evolved into various animals of the same species. For example, take a wolf and from there the dogs we have evolved, etc.

One other thing: I was watching Nature a couple of weeks ago (I like the show because it is interesting, as long as you ignore the "humans are responsible for the destruction of the planet and mother nature is supreme" tilt.) and they were talking about dogs, and the fact that as little as 110 years ago there were only about 40 types of dogs, and then in Victorian England it became very fashionable to begin cross breeding, etc., to develop "designer dogs" to where we now have something like 400 recognized breeds (I think it is around 400). They mentioned the English Bulldog, which looked completely different 110 years ago then what it does today.

So, to me it doesn't take a strain of the imagination to think that Noah could have put one type of a species on the ark and then let God handle the evolution back to the differing strains w/in the species...

[Guest Yediyd]

convinced It doesn't matter to m HOW he did it, I just KNOW that he did.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

i want to try a dina-sour. my mouth is puckering just thinking about em

Big lizard burgers, mmmmm... yummy.

Seriously though; one of the fun things about the scriptures regarding evolution is that G-d never left detailed descriptions of how the Earth was created other then to say: "I did it!" H- only left a statement of fact. It is then up to believe it. The scriptures, including the various creations accounts included therein are only texts of faith, not science.

I like evolution (it's funny mostly) and recognize that it is constantly changing as scientists continue to explore how it all came to be. Now let's see; Noah lived only a few thousand years ago and the dinosaurs died out (smushed by a big space rock) a bunch-a thousand years ago. I don't think Noah had the chance to put them aboard or other wise he would have built a bigger boat.

Aaron the Ogre

I would actually like to know if everyone actually believes that Noah was able to gather 2 of every living thing on the planet, and if so, how do you explain this "impossible" feat.....heck, just looking at the bugs in my garden makes me wonder. Here's the kicker...he only gathered two of the UNCLEAN beast, of the CLEAN beast, he gathered them by sevens....and Yes, I DO believe it...

It all depends of which version of the flood you believe - the J account of the P account.

Why do you believe the account that calls for two of the unclean, and sevens of the clean and the birds instead of the other version that calls for 2 of every animal.

What makes one version believable and the other not?

[CrimsonKairos]

The gravitational pull of the moon.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Guest bizabra]

<div class='quotemain'>

does any one have any explanations as to those big lizzards called the dinosours. when and what happened? did they not fit on the ark or something. I have a couple of these questions. I try not to let them interfer with my testimony but it would sure be nice to dismiss them once and for all.

BIZ: Please read through some of the articles listed in this web page: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html The 6th one down in particular may help you to understand why the flood story is METAPHOR and NOT LITERAL history. But read 'em all! Maybe some light will go on in your head and you will be enlightened.

One can always hope. . . . . .

(edited for clarity)

BIZ: PLEASE read this! Please!

[MaidservantX]

BTW, in the Book of Moses ch 7:50 and 8:24 says "the floods" (not the Flood). Curioser and curioser . . .

Also oddly and unfortunately the Book of Moses version cuts off the account before we get to the part (?) where the ark and the animal gathering are concerned; in fact ch 8:26 says that all life will be destroyed (which seems like something must have been preserved because flora and fauna are here today, but who knows). But it does shed a great deal of light on why God intended to cleanse the earth. On the other hand to me there is a subtle indication by the lack of the first person pronoun that God specifically sent the floods. I think that must be where I got the idea I used in my novel mentioned in an earlier post -- just that, perhaps, God was warning of floods. Oops, take it back -- ch 8:17;

Also, taking into account that we do not have the actual account in the Book of Moses about when "the Flood"/floods came, we only have the time when it was being warned of -- nevertheless, there is nary a mention of rain; only "the floods" 8:24 "the floods will come in upon you". For me this is a red alert for opportunities for understanding; in other words, "Huh?" What kind of geological situation would correspond with "will come in upon you"?

Also, this belongs in another thread, but I would note ch 8:27; Ham is not cut off (at this point?); there is no difference to him as far as "walked with God". ("Walked with God", I would submit, is a much more important phrase than merely a turn of phrase to mean that they were good men. It MEANS something.)

I know! I know! This is all taking place on what we now call the continent of Antarctica! Obviously a good deal Noah high-tailed it out of there as fast as possible.

(And, yes, I'm perfectly aware of natural science's date of 60 million years or so of how far back they put any change in the condition of the southern frozen continent. :) )

And personally, I like the AI version of how the ark was filled with specie samples.

[the Ogre]

Hi all,

I apologize to all those who think this is actually an important topic. Honestly, I don't. It is kind of interesting reading the research and how it either does or does not coincide with scripture.

This is all I can say of value regarding it: one day we will all find out the truth or we won't. It doesn't matter. The flood isn't a matter of exaltation, for most people today it is a nice story, an important principle, proof of G-d's power, or another example of how religionist's are ignorant extremists who are only interested in oppressing the ignorant for the purpose of power (something along those line).

Overall, if the argument does not help one learn about The Nature of G-d and H-s plan for us, then it is only a trivial argument meant to belittle the supposedly ignorant who are religious.

There are people who have no problem saying it never happened, and that is fine.

There are people who have no problem saying it did happen and science explains it, and that is fine.

There are people who have no problem saying it did happen and no explanation is necessary, and that is fine.

There are people who have no problem saying it never happened, but the moral it teaches is important, and that is fine.

There are people who have no problem saying it doesn't matter, but I believe in G-d anyway, and that is fine.

Pushing the point (whichever one you think is important) is important, but it does not seem that the dialogue is going anywhere (on this board or not). It has been this way for a long time. People often think that it is either what science says or what scripture says. What if actuality is not as simple as either? What if the lesson of the flood was not intended for our time except to understand what the Noachic Laws are and who they apply to? Whichever, the argument here borders on the trivial.

Aaron the Ogre

[Guest Yediyd]

Good point, Aaron, kinda like saying: I'm not ok and you're not ok...but that's ok!!!!!

[the Ogre]

Good point, Aaron, kinda like saying: I'm not ok and you're not ok...but that's ok!!!!!

I'm not okay????!?

:)

[lindamb296]

...I find that if you look hard enough you will find that creationism can go hand in hand with what scientists have been saying for some time.

That is soooo true!

Einstein said [paraphrased] It is lame to see God and not see science, it is foolish to see science and not see God. (I just LOVE that, Einstein sooo rocks!)

Check out these books:

1. Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding, Stephens, Meldrum, Peterson, Signature Books, 2001

2. Earth, In the Beginning, Skousen, Verity Publishing, 1996

3. Of Heaven and Earth, Reconciling Scientific Thought with LDS Theology, Clark, Deseret Books, 1998

4. Fingerprints of God, Evidences from Near-Death Studies, Scientific Research on Creation, and Mormon Theology.

Also, time is subjective. It is also not linear. I think it was Einstein who said [paraphrased] If time is so natural to man, why do we need clocks? It is said somewhere by a prophet (sorry, I'm bad about having references at my fingertips) that in Heaven, we will be able to travel to wherever and whenever in time we choose as quickly as it takes for the thought to develop in our mind. He used Egyptian times as an example, saying we could see life at that time as it occurs. This would be impossible if time were linear, hence, suggesting that time is more 'circular', so to speak (unless, of course, you believe in time travel like the sci-fi genre interprets it--which is impossible simply because of the time continuum theory).