The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

StephenJ -> The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/14/2008 6:21:42 PM)

I asked this in another thread and never really got an answer so I'll post it here.

As my parents, friends and anyone who really knows me can tell you, I am a Paleonut. I lived for Dinosaurs and other extinct animals as a kid. I knew more Latin than any sane elementary school student had any business knowing because of this love. Even though I no longer want to do it as a career I still love learning about ancient animals. So my questions....

How do YE: Creationist explain the extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and the "Marine Reptiles?" (I use the term Marine Reptiles in quotes because I'm not convinced these animals weren't warm blooded, we know for a fact that Icthyosaurs gave birth to live young)
I've heard something about some kind of Pre-flood canopy around the Earth allowing large animals to survive, and that post flood the absense of that canopy killed off the big dinosaurs. I have problems with that idea, but even if I were to endorse it, it doesn't explain things for me.

1. What about whales? The bigger whales are as large or larger than the biggest long necked Sauropauds scientest have dug up. I know it's tempting to say "Well they live in the water" but quite frankly in my opinion that argument collapses when we realize that whales are air breathers just like dinosaurs. Then of course we still have the problem with the Marine reptiles.

2. What about the small Dinosaurs? We all love the amazing pictures that long necked Sauropauds, and giant T-Rex's put into our heads but we have to remember that many dinosaurs were infact smaller than animals we still have walking around today. You could carry the smallest Coelurosaurs around in your hand (assuming it didn't bite you.)

3. What about the Pterosaurs? What explanation is there for why they aren't flying around today?

4. The Cryptozoologist in me loves the idea of Plesiosaurs living in Loch Ness, Lake Champlain, and Okanogan (how's that spelled Canadian friends?), or that these creatures inspired the legends of Sea Serpants but there's a problem. As far as we know the Marine reptiles (with the exception of the above mentioned Icthyosaurs) layed eggs on land. Why haven't we seen more of them?

5. I love the idea that the last two creatures God mentions in Job in the may be exstinct animals of some sort, but I've heard some commentators say that these could be (in the case of Behemoth) refrences to Hippo's or Elephants. Though I don't know of any Elephant's or Hippo's with "tails like Cedars" Anyone have any thoughts on that?

Thanks in advance for thinking about and answering my questions.



DanJames -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/14/2008 6:50:35 PM)

Stephen, I would love to sit down over coffee and do some dino-talk with you! I appreciate your enthusiasm! It sounds like you've got the right idea as to what the basic Creationist claims are when it comes to dinos. Let's hash some of 'em out.

1/2) You're right to have some hesitation to support the canopy theory. There are a lot of problems with it even acknowledged by it's biggest supporters. But they will tell you, and I agree, there are some things that can't be explained without it. I think it fits nicely into the verse that says that the waters above were separated from the waters below. It also explains how bugs could get so big and how humans could live so long. The problem is that there would be so much heat created by a canopy of any kind, that we'd get cooked. The problem is so bad that Dr. Larry Vardiman, the ICR scientist who does research on the Canopy Theory, has even proposed a reduction in solar output, admitting that it is scientifically heretical and un-uniformitarian. We'll see what everyone else thinks.

1. Yeah, I don't see the argument of them living in the water as being all that helpful. I don't think that the problem is proposed as the size so much as the size compared to respiration capacity. It may very well have been that all dinosaurs required more oxygen to be ecologically competitive. Less oxygen, less athletic. I'm just speculating, of course.

2. That's a good question. I don't hear much about small dinosaurs, but in the flood model, they would have to be accounted for as well. My previous comment is still my hypothesis. Of course, it's even more speculative and requires the canopy theory to be true.

3. and 4. I'm going to save people the pain of reading my rampant speculation and skip these ones.

5. The idea that Leviathan and Behemoth are anything other than large dinosaurs or some other large reptile is absurd. Even if we insist that leviathan's fire-breathing is chemically impossible and must be poetic, we have to insist that the rest of the description points to nothing other than fearsome dinosaurs.



EcclesFruitcake -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/14/2008 7:24:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

5. The idea that Leviathan and Behemoth are anything other than large dinosaurs or some other large reptile is absurd. Even if we insist that leviathan's fire-breathing is chemically impossible and must be poetic, we have to insist that the rest of the description points to nothing other than fearsome dinosaurs.


Please read my post here concerning the Behemoth in Job.

The russian word for hippopotamus is actually 'begemot (БЕГЕМОТ)' and is most likely derived from Hebrew.



EverLearning -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/14/2008 8:37:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
5. The idea that Leviathan and Behemoth are anything other than large dinosaurs or some other large reptile is absurd. Even if we insist that leviathan's fire-breathing is chemically impossible and must be poetic, we have to insist that the rest of the description points to nothing other than fearsome dinosaurs.

Really? Absurd you say? Why is it OK to claim that one part of the verse is poetic but we must insist that the rest of description is an accurate description of anything?



StephenJ -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/14/2008 8:45:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

Stephen, I would love to sit down over coffee and do some dino-talk with you! I appreciate your enthusiasm! It sounds like you've got the right idea as to what the basic Creationist claims are when it comes to dinos. Let's hash some of 'em out.

1/2) You're right to have some hesitation to support the canopy theory. There are a lot of problems with it even acknowledged by it's biggest supporters. But they will tell you, and I agree, there are some things that can't be explained without it. I think it fits nicely into the verse that says that the waters above were separated from the waters below. It also explains how bugs could get so big and how humans could live so long. The problem is that there would be so much heat created by a canopy of any kind, that we'd get cooked. The problem is so bad that Dr. Larry Vardiman, the ICR scientist who does research on the Canopy Theory, has even proposed a reduction in solar output, admitting that it is scientifically heretical and un-uniformitarian. We'll see what everyone else thinks.

1. Yeah, I don't see the argument of them living in the water as being all that helpful. I don't think that the problem is proposed as the size so much as the size compared to respiration capacity. It may very well have been that all dinosaurs required more oxygen to be ecologically competitive. Less oxygen, less athletic. I'm just speculating, of course.

2. That's a good question. I don't hear much about small dinosaurs, but in the flood model, they would have to be accounted for as well. My previous comment is still my hypothesis. Of course, it's even more speculative and requires the canopy theory to be true.



Interesting has any work been put into that theory? Is there anything in the fossil record that promotes the idea that even medium sized dinosaurs, say a Ceritopian like the famous Triceritops, needed more oxygen than an animal of similar size that's still alive today. How much oxygen does say an African Elephant need?



unclemonkey -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/14/2008 9:07:00 PM)

Something must have been different about the pre-flood atmosphere for some of the long necked dinosaurs to have lived, but I think the main culprit in dinosaur extinction is man’s aversion to reptiles.



miessemusic -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/15/2008 1:51:01 AM)

I find it uplifting that many atheists have decided to come to a Christian radio station's message forum and push their views.

They are surrounded by a ton of Bible believing Christians on here, so maybe they'll come out learning something.

Hopefully they come to know Christ. That's the ultimate in freedom!

I wouldn't doubt that some of the atheists who post on here are probably from the organization "Atheist Agenda" at the University of Texas-San Antonio.



DanJames -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/15/2008 9:48:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EcclesFruitcake

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

5. The idea that Leviathan and Behemoth are anything other than large dinosaurs or some other large reptile is absurd. Even if we insist that leviathan's fire-breathing is chemically impossible and must be poetic, we have to insist that the rest of the description points to nothing other than fearsome dinosaurs.


Please read my post here concerning the Behemoth in Job.

The russian word for hippopotamus is actually 'begemot (БЕГЕМОТ)' and is most likely derived from Hebrew.


It's possible, I suppose, that he may have been bragging about something like a hippo. I do find it absurd that he would be describing a hippo, and I sharply disagree with your claim that the ONLY reason to interpret it as being a dinosaur is to clandestinely sneak dinosaurs into human history, a notion which is ONLY bizarre because we have been trained to picture Dinosaurs as far ancient creatures which no person has ever seen. To the contrary, I would say that if it was not assumed a priori that dinosaurs were NOT in our history, the word Behemoth would probably be synonymous today with "Sauropod".

quote:

This line is describing a tails action not size. Trees sway in the wind perhaps akin to how hippopotami swish their tails, which they do frequently.

The translator's note in the NET gives some insight into why this is probably not describing the tail of a hippopotamus.
quote:


"tn The verb חָפַץ (khafats) occurs only here. It may have the meaning “to make stiff; to make taut” (Arabic). The LXX and the Syriac versions support this with “erects.” But there is another Arabic word that could be cognate, meaning “arch, bend.” This would give the idea of the tail swaying. The other reading seems to make better sense here. However, “stiff” presents a serious problem with the view that the animal is the hippopotamus."
Only reptiles have a tail that is large in proportion to their size, and in the past we used to think that dinosaurs were tail draggers, but now we know that they actually stiffen their tails and use them as a counter-balance just like is described by this word "khafats".

And since we don't know where the sauropod lived except to circularly reason that they lived in the swamp because Job 40 says they did and we know that they did in Job 40 because they lived in the swamps therefore Job 40 must be describing the sauropod... we can just forget about the rest of the arguments.



DanJames -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/15/2008 9:51:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EverLearning

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
5. The idea that Leviathan and Behemoth are anything other than large dinosaurs or some other large reptile is absurd. Even if we insist that leviathan's fire-breathing is chemically impossible and must be poetic, we have to insist that the rest of the description points to nothing other than fearsome dinosaurs.

Really? Absurd you say? Why is it OK to claim that one part of the verse is poetic but we must insist that the rest of description is an accurate description of anything?

Oh my, I do find this to be a loosing battle. (By the way that last statement was a metaphor. I don't mean that we are actually engaged in warfare between our two armies.) I don't think it's difficult to know when an author goes poetic. We've talked about this a thousand times. (Not literally, it's figurative to suggest that we done it a lot.)



DanJames -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/15/2008 9:54:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: StephenJ

Interesting has any work been put into that theory? Is there anything in the fossil record that promotes the idea that even medium sized dinosaurs, say a Ceritopian like the famous Triceritops, needed more oxygen than an animal of similar size that's still alive today. How much oxygen does say an African Elephant need?

Sorry, I don't know. You might go to the Answers in Genesis website and get some references, but I'm not going to try to give you information that I'm not confident about. Maybe when Jhud gets off his thumbs and starts posting on these threads we can get some scholarly resources from him.

Wow, three subsequent posts in the same thread. I would hate me if I saw me do that.



EcclesFruitcake -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/15/2008 10:25:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

It's possible, I suppose, that he may have been bragging about something like a hippo. I do find it absurd that he would be describing a hippo, and I sharply disagree with your claim that the ONLY reason to interpret it as being a dinosaur is to clandestinely sneak dinosaurs into human history, a notion which is ONLY bizarre because we have been trained to picture Dinosaurs as far ancient creatures which no person has ever seen. To the contrary, I would say that if it was not assumed a priori that dinosaurs were NOT in our history, the word Behemoth would probably be synonymous today with "Sauropod".


In that post I intentionally used the scripture to hammer home the point that a different interpretation is possible without even considering whether dinosaurs were ever contemporary to man (which is utterly ridiculous if you have a modicom of common sense).

To say that we are merely trained to picture dinosaurs as ancient causes me great consternation and makes me question your objectivity. I really do not know where to start with a such a bamboozling claim.

Nevertheless I am happy you have moved from absurd to possible.



DanJames -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/15/2008 12:29:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EcclesFruitcake

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

It's possible, I suppose, that he may have been bragging about something like a hippo. I do find it absurd that he would be describing a hippo, and I sharply disagree with your claim that the ONLY reason to interpret it as being a dinosaur is to clandestinely sneak dinosaurs into human history, a notion which is ONLY bizarre because we have been trained to picture Dinosaurs as far ancient creatures which no person has ever seen. To the contrary, I would say that if it was not assumed a priori that dinosaurs were NOT in our history, the word Behemoth would probably be synonymous today with "Sauropod".


In that post I intentionally used the scripture to hammer home the point that a different interpretation is possible without even considering whether dinosaurs were ever contemporary to man (which is utterly ridiculous if you have a modicom of common sense).

To say that we are merely trained to picture dinosaurs as ancient causes me great consternation and makes me question your objectivity. I really do not know where to start with a such a bamboozling claim.

Nevertheless I am happy you have moved from absurd to possible.


I don't think you meant bamboozling, that doesn't mean what I think you thought it meant, and don't be too happy, just because it was possible, doesn't mean that it isn't absurd. Since you've brought common sense into the picture, what does common sense tell us about dinosaurs?



Agahnim -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/15/2008 2:24:08 PM)

quote:

The translator's note in the NET gives some insight into why this is probably not describing the tail of a hippopotamus.
quote:


"tn The verb חָפַץ (khafats) occurs only here. It may have the meaning “to make stiff; to make taut” (Arabic). The LXX and the Syriac versions support this with “erects.” But there is another Arabic word that could be cognate, meaning “arch, bend.” This would give the idea of the tail swaying. The other reading seems to make better sense here. However, “stiff” presents a serious problem with the view that the animal is the hippopotamus."
Only reptiles have a tail that is large in proportion to their size, and in the past we used to think that dinosaurs were tail draggers, but now we know that they actually stiffen their tails and use them as a counter-balance just like is described by this word "khafats".

I’m not sure how much detail this forum’s rules allow me to go into about this, but in Biblical Hebrew the word “tail” is sometimes used as a euphemism for “penis”. Biblical Hebrew doesn’t have any one word that specifically means “penis”, so it’s always just implied by context.

If you look at the literal translation of the next part of the verse, there are some clues from context what it’s referring to:

He maketh his tail like stiff like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

Now, what other than a literal tail could be meant by an appendage which becomes stiff, paired with “stones wrapped in sinews”?

quote:

And since we don't know where the sauropod lived except to circularly reason that they lived in the swamp because Job 40 says they did and we know that they did in Job 40 because they lived in the swamps therefore Job 40 must be describing the sauropod... we can just forget about the rest of the arguments.

There’s fossil evidence suggesting that sauropods didn’t live in swamps. The feet of heavily animals that live there, such as hippopotami, are broad and flat in order to support the animal’s weight on soft ground. Whereas heavy animals that live on dry ground, such as elephants, have compact, heavily braced feet. If you examine the feet of sauropods, they’re structurally very similar to those of elephants. Sauropods wouldn’t have been able to walk on swampy ground without sinking in up to their ankles.

The tails of sauropods weren’t “stiff’, either; the dinosaurs that used their tails as counterbalances the way you're describing were theropods and ornithopods. Most paleontologists think that sauropods used their tails as whips in order to defend themselves from predators; that should give you an idea of how flexible they would have been.



essentialsaltes -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/15/2008 3:01:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim
the sinews of his stones are wrapped together


Interesting. Stones is indeed used for testicles in the KJV. And in the Vulgate, the passage appears to be "Stringit caudam suam quasi cedrum;
nervi testiculorum ejus perplexi sunt."

Do dinosaurs have external, um, naughty bits?



Agahnim -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/15/2008 3:13:38 PM)

quote:

Interesting. Stones is indeed used for testicles in the KJV. And in the Vulgate, the passage appears to be "Stringit caudam suam quasi cedrum;
nervi testiculorum ejus perplexi sunt."

Do dinosaurs have external, um, naughty bits?

Probably not, since their closest living relatives (birds and crocodiles) don’t. Some male birds don’t have a penis at all, apparently as a way to minimize weight for flying efficiency, but both crocodiles and flightless birds such as ostriches keep it inside their bodies except when they need to use it. None of these animals have a scrotum, either; their testicles are completely internal. That’s probably how it was for dinosaurs also.



StephenJ -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/15/2008 3:36:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

Something must have been different about the pre-flood atmosphere for some of the long necked dinosaurs to have lived, but I think the main culprit in dinosaur extinction is man’s aversion to reptiles.


But if that's the case than why aren't we finding numerous Dinosaur/Pterosaur fossils with human spear points in them? I mean I'm not even sure that a spear made of stone could kill one of the bigger dinosaurs, but if that's the case we should see more evidence right?

And yes I've heard "that" translation for what Behemoth's "tail" is. I've also heard it could be a refrence to an Elephant's trunk. Honestly, a Sauropaud is the only animal I know of that fits all of the characteristics described in Job 40.



Agahnim -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/15/2008 6:53:23 PM)

quote:

And yes I've heard "that" translation for what Behemoth's "tail" is. I've also heard it could be a refrence to an Elephant's trunk. Honestly, a Sauropaud is the only animal I know of that fits all of the characteristics described in Job 40.

If the word translated as “tail” could also refer to the animal’s penis, what characteristics are described there that couldn’t refer to a hippopotamus?



DanJames -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/15/2008 7:15:20 PM)

Guys... please. Can we just assume for philosophical reasons that God is NOT going to try to awe Job by describing the swaying and/or stiffening of an animal's penis and testicles?



Jhud -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/15/2008 7:16:23 PM)

quote:

If the word translated as “tail” could also refer to the animal’s penis, what characteristics are described there that couldn’t refer to a hippopotamus?


I have seen a few of hippos, and I have to say that interpretation seems to require as much imagination as the sauropod one.



Agahnim -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/15/2008 7:25:53 PM)

quote:

Guys... please. Can we just assume for philosophical reasons that God is NOT going to try to awe Job by describing the swaying and/or stiffening of an animal's penis and testicles?

After reading the literal translation of this verse, and how these words were used in Biblical Hebrew, I don’t think there’s any other interpretation of the verse that makes sense. It definitely isn’t a good description of a sauropod, both because sauropods had the wrong foot anatomy to live in swamps and their tails weren’t stiff.

Do we know for sure that discussing this sort of thing was considered “taboo” back then? Just because that’s how people feel about it nowadays doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have been considered acceptable whenever Job was written.



DanJames -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/17/2008 12:23:16 PM)

Anyway,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim

There’s fossil evidence suggesting that sauropods didn’t live in swamps. The feet of heavily animals that live there, such as hippopotami, are broad and flat in order to support the animal’s weight on soft ground. Whereas heavy animals that live on dry ground, such as elephants, have compact, heavily braced feet. If you examine the feet of sauropods, they’re structurally very similar to those of elephants. Sauropods wouldn’t have been able to walk on swampy ground without sinking in up to their ankles.


Elephant feet are just fine for walking on soft ground. When they step in soft mud, their feet sink in deep because of their weight, but the fat in their feet causes their legs to expand. When they remove the weight from said foot, said foot shrinks enough to allow air in, removing the suction. So, if the sauropod foot is "similar to those of elephants", then they'd do just fine walking on swampy ground, because elephants do just fine when they tromp in the mud.



StephenJ -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (4/25/2008 5:25:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

Something must have been different about the pre-flood atmosphere for some of the long necked dinosaurs to have lived, but I think the main culprit in dinosaur extinction is man’s aversion to reptiles.


And another thing that doesn't make sense is why they would leave Croc's and gators alive. People on both sides of the argument agree that they coexisted with the dinosaurs.



jbow -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (5/2/2008 10:38:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: miessemusic

I find it uplifting that many atheists have decided to come to a Christian radio station's message forum and push their views.

They are surrounded by a ton of Bible believing Christians on here, so maybe they'll come out learning something.

Hopefully they come to know Christ. That's the ultimate in freedom!

I wouldn't doubt that some of the atheists who post on here are probably from the organization "Atheist Agenda" at the University of Texas-San Antonio.


It really, really bothers me that some will in one breath claim to be a Christian and in the next call God a liar. He plainly say's in His word what happened. Six days for creation. Global flood. Changed world.
There are fire breathing dragons in many cultures, probably a dino. There is no problem with that when you look at the rest of creation. The bombadier beetle is similar today. It does not spit fire but what it does spit will burn you badly.

Christians, by definition, believe God's word. The heathen are by definition non-believers. I don't understand why unbelievers bother to come here and push lies instread of seeking truth, why not go where other unbelievers are. I guess they are hoping to trip up people in their faith... I don't know.

I am deeply troubled by people who call themselves Christians but do not believe God's word. That is, IMO, calling God a liar, impuning His honor and it offend's me and frankly, makes me angry.

J



drj11 -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (5/2/2008 1:19:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbow
It really, really bothers me that some will in one breath claim to be a Christian and in the next call God a liar. He plainly say's in His word what happened. Six days for creation. Global flood. Changed world.
There are fire breathing dragons in many cultures, probably a dino. There is no problem with that when you look at the rest of creation. The bombadier beetle is similar today. It does not spit fire but what it does spit will burn you badly.

Christians, by definition, believe God's word. The heathen are by definition non-believers. I don't understand why unbelievers bother to come here and push lies instread of seeking truth, why not go where other unbelievers are. I guess they are hoping to trip up people in their faith... I don't know.

I am deeply troubled by people who call themselves Christians but do not believe God's word. That is, IMO, calling God a liar, impuning His honor and it offend's me and frankly, makes me angry.


Well, here's the rub jbow.... if you believe in literal interpretation of genesis, you have to believe God is deceptive. You cannot get around that anymore. The only way Genesis can in anyway be consistent with reality if taken literally, is if God designed the universe and life with the false appearance of age... kind of like winding a watch of the universe to billions of years later, but in six days. Scientists can be very wrong... but so can you.. and interpretations of religious texts can be just as wrong. The sheer magnitude of scientific error across almost all natural science disciplines would have to be so incalculably wrong for a 6 day creation to be true... its really surprising and frustrating people still cling to the idea. And even worse, demand equal time in science classes for their ideas. Sorry, literalists are wrong here, not science. You cannot claim a 6 day creation and in the same breath claim that your God is honest and truthful. You can, however, hold a figurative or non-literal interpretation of Genesis and claim God is truthful. Stories are often told in literal wording but are still allegorical in nature, and designed to impart a greater truth.

Read up on Last Thursdayism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism


quote:


...
A deceptive creator

From a religious viewpoint, it can be interpreted as God having 'created a fake,' such as illusions of light in space of stellar explosions (supernovae) that never really happened, or volcanic mountains that were never really volcanoes in the first place and that never actually experienced erosion, and the idea that God would create appearances that are so completely deceiving to every level of detail is not consistent with most benevolent theistic theologies.


quote:


God essentially created two conflicting accounts of Creation: one in nature, and one in the Torah. How can it be determined which is the real story, and which is the fake designed to mislead us? One could equally propose that it is nature which presents the real story, and that the Torah was devised by God to test us with a fake history! One has to be able to rely on God's truthfulness if religion is to function. Or, to put it another way -- if God went to enormous lengths to convince us that the world is billions of years old, who are we to disagree?


Sorry for threadjack.



StephenJ -> RE: The Extinction of the Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Marine Reptiles in a Young Earth timeline. (5/2/2008 7:32:04 PM)

All I'm saying is that there's a movement among Young Earth creationist to be taken seriously in scientific and educational circles. If that's the case then they have to be ready to stand up to serious scientific questioning as well as concepts like tough peer review of theories/articles, skepticism (science is kind of based on the idea of big claims demanding substantial proof), and a willingness to acknowledge the view points of others.

I don't think the questions I've asked are illigitemate ones. I don't feel I've received a really scientifically satisfactory answer in regards to the mass extinction of these animals in a YE framework. I mean extending it even further, what about many of the Cenezoic animals that in an Old Earth timeline were after the Dinosaurs, but before humans?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI