was Darwin a Christian? Does the evolution debate even matter?

[bholdj]

This is a new thread from the "zaqwari killed in iraq" thread, were a friend and i were talking about darwin, lets hear some thoughts :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmn4life
I believe Darwin was initially raised Catholic. Beyond that I've seen nothing to demonstrate that he was a Christian except an e-mail that was circulated for a long time and was disputed by his family according to something else I read. I guess God knows.

--Melanie

I hate to hyjack, I know their is some controversey around his faith. I just feel like the Bible was written to save sinners, not give Gods John Hanckock on how He exactly created the universe. Peter says with God, 1 day "is a 1,000 years", perhaps 7 days was indeed 7,000 or so years to create the universe?

It stinks that many resources have been used to rebuke darwin, when in fact those same resources could be used to raise up Jesus and not tear down an irrelevant scientist.

[middletree]

To me, Darwin's work shows God to true more than ever. Not sure why most Christians don't see this. I don't, of course, believe that man evolved from lower animals, but there is nothing in the bible to indicate that other species didn't adapt and change. This shows me that God is such a great designer that He allowed life forms to adapt to their environments, thus ensuring their survival.

[bholdj]

To me, Darwin's work shows God to true more than ever. Not sure why most Christians don't see this. I don't, of course, believe that man evolved from lower animals, but there is nothing in the bible to indicate that other species didn't adapt and change. This shows me that God is such a great designer that He allowed life forms to adapt to their environments, thus ensuring their survival.

*cue a massive HALLELUJAH CHORUS!!!!!!!!!!!*

I have belived that for years james, unfortunatley, not evreybody in Lubbock does.

[Drummer Dude Go]

There is nothing in the bible to indicate that other species didn't adapt and change. This shows me that God is such a great designer that He allowed life forms to adapt to their environments, thus ensuring their survival.
I have believed that species change in response to thier living environment all along, just not that we humans really came from monkeys or apes.:)

[bholdj]

I have believed that species change in response to thier living environment all along, just not that we humans really came from monkeys or apes.:)

*ohh when the saints, come marching in* :D

not to offend others who don't believe this, but i felt i was getting a looney being a Christian and accepting some tennents of evolution as God made :D

[Grank]

darwin = natural selection

natural selection is completely Biblical... and factual. micro-evolution good... macro-evolution bad.

[middletree]

I have believed that species change in response to thier living environment all along, just not that we humans really came from monkeys or apes.:)
Darwin never said humans evolved from apes. In fact, no secular, evolution-believing scientist says this. They claim that one species (not an ape) went two different directions in evolution. One branch became apes, the other humans. In other words, they believe that man and apes have a common ancestor.

I don't believe that, for the record. Just wanted to set the record straight.

[Drummer Dude Go]

Darwin never said humans evolved from apes. In fact, no secular, evolution-believing scientist says this. They claim that one species (not an ape) went two different directions in evolution. One branch became apes, the other humans. In other words, they believe that man and apes have a common ancestor.

I don't believe that, for the record. Just wanted to set the record straight.
Yeah, that's kinda what I meant, but thanks for putting it into better words than I did.:) Have a nice day, MiddleTree, and BTW: I like the meaning behind your board name, it is a very good meaning!

[Yippy]

not to offend others who don't believe this, but i felt i was getting a looney being a Christian and accepting some tennents of evolution as God made :D
There are probably more of us around than you think.:) I have never seen science as a threat to my faith. The creation will only point to the Creator.

[bholdj]

There are probably more of us around than you think.:) I have never seen science as a threat to my faith. The creation will only point to the Creator.

i feel like Logan on X-men when hes walking through the mansion...

"you see Logan, your not as alone as you think" :)

thanks diane :D

[Mugirl04]

evolution debate does matter. I think darwin could be a christian, but I don't believe in any part of evolution. I think the debate matters when people try to use evolution to deny God

[HotWireD]

There are probably more of us around than you think.:) I have never seen science as a threat to my faith. The creation will only point to the Creator.

Hear hear!

[middletree]

I don't believe in any part of evolution.

You don/t believe in any part of evolution? So when a new strain of flu virus appears that is resistant to vaccines, you are saying that you don't believe this?

[Valpo]

You don/t believe in any part of evolution? So when a new strain of flu virus appears that is resistant to vaccines, you are saying that you don't believe this?

well, she probably means macroevolution, which is the thing creationists/evolutionists disagree on

[Mugirl04]

You don/t believe in any part of evolution? So when a new strain of flu virus appears that is resistant to vaccines, you are saying that you don't believe this?
i am not talking about micro i am talking about macro

[middletree]

i am not talking about micro i am talking about macro
I'm not convinced that either one is unbiblical.

[Evanescence]

A fundie, wrote into our local paper spouting off about the new Dinosaur specie they found. She said the bible proves they exisited during bible times..pre-flodd etc etc and that science disputes this.

I find it hogwash....

Our fossil fuels come from crushed and compressed plants and animals from many, many, many years ago.

Now, our planet was very tropical and different than it is today, filled with giant creatures and a variety of plants we don't have today. The whole world plant and animal wise was totally different than today. Now, all at once, something happened and killed off everything AND covered it up. Most likley a giant meteor.

A giant meteor hit the earth and caused a several year long dust cloud which killed off almost everything and covered a large amount of it with dust/rock. This began the system of making fossil fuel....OIL. This didn't happen over the course of 20 sum-odd years. It was immediate....a cata-clysmic (sp) event.

There is NO way this occured during the past 6-7 thousand years....in bible times. It wasn't the flood and Dinosaurs as we know them from fossils didnt roam the earth during bible times either. It simply is a matter of simple math and common sense.

But, many of us insist the earth is only 6000 yrs old based on math in the bible. It just can't be. I'm sorry, but I'd bet my life and eveerything I own that its not accurate in the least....that timeline, I mean.

Back in the 1800's Christians accused scientists of all sorts of things when they unearthed Dinosaurs. They were stubborn and pius but finally yielded to the fact Dinosaurs lived.

I think we can learn from science and some theories on evolution have merit. God created everything but just like a fish tank that needs time to culture, the earth had to evolve. When it was ready, God made man.

Its been downhill ever since...:rolleyes: :( :rolleyes:

[Grank]

i'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there, E. the fact that we believe it takes a long time to make fossil fuels doesn't mean the earth is old. it could mean that God put them there just like he put us here. since this is a possiblity your logic can be refuted.

[SmileyFreak1981]

I'm all for the idea that species adapt to different environments over time. I think we all see this, for the most part. I'm not, however, for the idea that man and ape are both decendants of the same ancient creature. Number one, because there's no evidence of such a creature to my knowledge, and two, because the "missing link" has not been found.

As for Darwin: First of all, who are we to question his faith? So he wrote the book The Origin of Species...have those who call him "evil" and "against God" actually read this book that they point to as the root of evil evolution? Sadly, most have not. I think they'd be surprised if they did.

I think Darwin was a true scientist in the sense that he was just coming up with theory based upon what he observed. I think he was throwing it out there as an idea. And, as far as Origin of Species goes, he never says man decended from apes. He just talks a lot about observations he made throughout most of the book, and then draws some conclusions based on that.

So I don't think people should have a beef with Charles Darwin. I think they should have beef with the modern scientists who practice the religion of evolution, as oposed to practicing science.

[Lswaczy]

This is a new thread from the "zaqwari killed in iraq" thread, were a friend and i were talking about darwin, lets hear some thoughts :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmn4life
I believe Darwin was initially raised Catholic. Beyond that I've seen nothing to demonstrate that he was a Christian except an e-mail that was circulated for a long time and was disputed by his family according to something else I read. I guess God knows.

--Melanie

I hate to hyjack, I know their is some controversey around his faith. I just feel like the Bible was written to save sinners, not give Gods John Hanckock on how He exactly created the universe. Peter says with God, 1 day "is a 1,000 years", perhaps 7 days was indeed 7,000 or so years to create the universe?

It stinks that many resources have been used to rebuke darwin, when in fact those same resources could be used to raise up Jesus and not tear down an irrelevant scientist.darwin was not a cristian and he belived in science not faith of God our creator anyway evolution is not true there is alot of book's that dissproves of what he say's and alot of scientist who are not cristian but believe and prove that darwin was wrong

[Lswaczy]

A fundie, wrote into our local paper spouting off about the new Dinosaur specie they found. She said the bible proves they exisited during bible times..pre-flodd etc etc and that science disputes this.

I find it hogwash....

Our fossil fuels come from crushed and compressed plants and animals from many, many, many years ago.

Now, our planet was very tropical and different than it is today, filled with giant creatures and a variety of plants we don't have today. The whole world plant and animal wise was totally different than today. Now, all at once, something happened and killed off everything AND covered it up. Most likley a giant meteor.

A giant meteor hit the earth and caused a several year long dust cloud which killed off almost everything and covered a large amount of it with dust/rock. This began the system of making fossil fuel....OIL. This didn't happen over the course of 20 sum-odd years. It was immediate....a cata-clysmic (sp) event.

There is NO way this occured during the past 6-7 thousand years....in bible times. It wasn't the flood and Dinosaurs as we know them from fossils didnt roam the earth during bible times either. It simply is a matter of simple math and common sense.

But, many of us insist the earth is only 6000 yrs old based on math in the bible. It just can't be. I'm sorry, but I'd bet my life and eveerything I own that its not accurate in the least....that timeline, I mean.

Back in the 1800's Christians accused scientists of all sorts of things when they unearthed Dinosaurs. They were stubborn and pius but finally yielded to the fact Dinosaurs lived.

I think we can learn from science and some theories on evolution have merit. God created everything but just like a fish tank that needs time to culture, the earth had to evolve. When it was ready, God made man.

Its been downhill ever since...:rolleyes: :( :rolleyes:
God did create heaven and earth and yes he did also create dinosaurs then he created man u want prove read the bible in genus and it is now a human and animal world now but many years ago there were dinosaurs

[Lswaczy]

i'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there, E. the fact that we believe it takes a long time to make fossil fuels doesn't mean the earth is old. it could mean that God put them there just like he put us here. since this is a possiblity your logic can be refuted.
its true he put us here though I may not be sure about the dinosaurs but all I know for a fact is GOD created Heaven and Earth and the bible is there to save sinners and express God's word and love of us and animal's and the earth.

[Sharon]

To me, Darwin's work shows God to true more than ever. Not sure why most Christians don't see this. I don't, of course, believe that man evolved from lower animals, but there is nothing in the bible to indicate that other species didn't adapt and change. This shows me that God is such a great designer that He allowed life forms to adapt to their environments, thus ensuring their survival.


Micro-evolution - adaptation within a species...we see it all the time. A duck is still a duck though.

Macro-evolution - chaging into a new species just doesn't happen. There has yet to be proof. A duck doesn't wake up one day and say "HEY! I think I want to be a tiger"

[Evanescence]

God did create heaven and earth and yes he did also create dinosaurs then he created man u want prove read the bible in genus and it is now a human and animal world now but many years ago there were dinosaurs

I'm not disputing that God made the Earth and Dinosaurs.....I'm disptuing the timeline....

Dinosaurs roamed the earth LONG before man was here...modern man that is...

[Sharon]

i'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there, E. the fact that we believe it takes a long time to make fossil fuels doesn't mean the earth is old. it could mean that God put them there just like he put us here. since this is a possiblity your logic can be refuted.

and actually it doesn't always take as long as we think. They've done experiements in the lab on making diamonds, oil pressure and the like. Carbon dating is not as accurate as we like to think....

I think it was in Scientific American circa 1974 when they carbon dated a bag og garbage in the lab and it turned out to be 1.5 million years old

[Sharon]

I'm not disputing that God made the Earth and Dinosaurs.....I'm disptuing the timeline....

Dinosaurs roamed the earth LONG before man was here...modern man that is...
then again............just a thought..........

in Job 41 I've heard that this is a description of dinosaurs (starting at vs 15 specifically)

No one knows for sure exactly what is being described..."plates down his back" Stegasoraus maybe???

[Sharon]

Charles Darwin had his "revelation" on the Galapagos Islands after observing many species that were similar to ones he had had seen in South America. Specifically, there was a bird (cannot remember which one for the life of me) that when there was plentiful food, the babies were born with small, narrow beaks in order to enable easier eating. When food was scarce, the babies were born with wider, stouter beaks in order to enable the eating of bigger berries, nuts and the like.

All this proves is micro-evolution. They were still the same birds, just adapting to the environment. Same with the similar species he observed. They were the same , yet had adapted to the Galapagos environment.

[Valpo]

Micro-evolution - adaptation within a species...we see it all the time. A duck is still a duck though.

Macro-evolution - chaging into a new species just doesn't happen. There has yet to be proof. A duck doesn't wake up one day and say "HEY! I think I want to be a tiger"

This is a fine point, because they can claim all the scientific theories they want, but the science community has forged fossils to make them look like species they really werent and they have screwed up ages of fossils, but aside from all that the crux of their argument concerning evolution is MIA! No one has ever found a fossil of an animal in an inbetween stage of evolving from say an ape to a man or a velociraptor and a bird, it just doesnt exist

[middletree]

I'm all for the idea that species adapt to different environments over time. I think we all see this, for the most part. I'm not, however, for the idea that man and ape are both decendants of the same ancient creature.

I hope it's clear that nobody here has said that man evolved from lower creatures.

[Valpo]

I hope it's clear that nobody here has said that man evolved from lower creatures.

im pretty sure Evanescence has made that claim...

[middletree]

Micro-evolution - adaptation within a species...we see it all the time. A duck is still a duck though.


I'm glad you see this, but many Creationists insist that all life forms are exactly the way God made them the first week of creation.

Macro-evolution - chaging into a new species just doesn't happen. There has yet to be proof. A duck doesn't wake up one day and say "HEY! I think I want to be a tiger"

It is true that this hasn't been proven. But the possibility isn't ruled out by the bible, and that's the important point here. There are some who preach that to teach that species to evolve into other species is somehow anti-biblical, when in truth, the bible never says anything of the sort.

[middletree]

and actually it doesn't always take as long as we think. They've done experiements in the lab on making diamonds, oil pressure and the like. Carbon dating is not as accurate as we like to think....

I think it was in Scientific American circa 1974 when they carbon dated a bag og garbage in the lab and it turned out to be 1.5 million years old
You must have misread that article. Carbon dating is never used to determine the age of something millions of years old. It only goes to about 14,000 years.

Items in the millions of years are dated by Uranium 238, not carbon.

[middletree]

then again............just a thought..........

in Job 41 I've heard that this is a description of dinosaurs (starting at vs 15 specifically)

No one knows for sure exactly what is being described..."plates down his back" Stegasoraus maybe???
I've heard this before, but the word is Leviathan, and the description is nowhere near as precise as that. There's no way to tell what kind of animal it is.

Moreover, it would conflict with the views of those Creationists who insist that dinosaurs were destroyed in the Flood.

[cheewiee]

I've heard this before, but the word is Leviathan, and the description is nowhere near as precise as that. There's no way to tell what kind of animal it is.

Moreover, it would conflict with the views of those Creationists who insist that dinosaurs were destroyed in the Flood.

Why?

The Septugent Identifies Job as a descendent of Esau... So why is it so far fetched that Job belief in Levithian could be from a Preflood creature?

[HotWireD]

I study geology and collect dinosaur bones and other fossils I have a few problems, lol - but not with Genesis - personally, I think there is nothing contradictory in the Holy Bible concerning the origin of life on and the creation of the universe compared to what the scientists now state. I actually am amazed that the Holy Bible - written thousands of years before the Enlightenment is so accurate as to the time periods involved, the order of life's origins on earth and the development of mankind as a civilisation.



Speaking to a coal miner many years ago, he mentioned something that does confuse me about the scientific explanation for the production of coal seams.

Scientific theory states that thousands and thousands of years of tree/vegetation growth and decay compacts down into inches of coal...

He told me of his personal experience with tree trunks from giant trees (similar to redwoods from his description). As the coal miners dug through the coal seams they would dig through these tree trunks. After they had passed, the portion of the tree trunk above the tunnel would drop down - this was a major hazard to the miners and they had to observe the digging carefully to spot these trunks.

These tree trunks were several feet in diameter and rose up above and below the seams - indicating that these trees had stood upright whilst being fossilised... They even extended upwards into the stone layers above and below the coal seams - indicating that they had stood for millions of years whilst the stone/rock formed around them! Please note I am not talking about petrified trees - now made of stone - but of soft 'coal' trees.

Imagine a prehistoric tree 'up to its waist' in rotting vegetation for thousands and thousands of years. These seams were ten feet or more thick - indicating, by scientific theory, that the seams were millions of years old.

Does this mean that a tree stood in a rotting mass of vegetation for millions of years remaining upright whilst the vegetation around it was compressed into coal and there was no inwards pressure towards the trunk that would have resulted in it compressing/coalescing with the seam of coal?

This would lead me to believe that the formation of coal..

...doesn't always take as long as we think...

[Grank]

can somebody say abiotic?

[HotWireD]

can somebody say abiotic?

"abiotic"


In what context? :)

[Grank]

"abiotic"


In what context? :)
abiotic oil my friend... not fossil fuels at all. things that make you go hmmmm...

[middletree]

Why?

The Septugent Identifies Job as a descendent of Esau... So why is it so far fetched that Job belief in Levithian could be from a Preflood creature?
I was making 2 assumptions:

1. Job lived after the flood
2. Job personally saw the Leviathan.

I don't have time to research this right now. Are both assumptions correct?

[ObiShawn]

This is a question, not a debate -

What support do people use to up hold the theory that Job lived before the flood? I've seen in several commentaries how some think this, but I haven't heard any evidence.

The one thing I have heard is that in the book of Job there is no mention of the flood, but that isn't a very reliable point because there are several OT books in which the flood isn't mentioned.

[Mugirl04]

i'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there, E. the fact that we believe it takes a long time to make fossil fuels doesn't mean the earth is old. it could mean that God put them there just like he put us here. since this is a possiblity your logic can be refuted.
agree. I think when the flood happen it made fossils age must faster

[Gandalf]

I was making 2 assumptions:

1. Job lived after the flood
2. Job personally saw the Leviathan.

I don't have time to research this right now. Are both assumptions correct?
I believe both assumptions are correct. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the theory that the dinosaurs became extinct as a result of the Flood is invalid; it just means it didn't happen instantaneously - there would likely be massive climate changes after a global flood; it's likely extinctions would occur among creatures unable to adapt... but this process would take time; they wouldn't all instantly die, just may not ever achieve enough population to survive as a species in the long run. Such a flood could explain the fossil record, many geological formations (Grand Canyon, etc.), and later extinctions. It's not the only possible explanation, but it's not invalidated by a possible dinosaur species still existing for a time after the flood.

[middletree]

If dinos were around right before the Flood, there are 2 possibilities, neither of which makes much sense to me:

1. Dinos were killed off by the Flood itself, immediately. This violates verses in Gen 6 which say that Noah took 2 (or 7) of each kind of animal abord the Ark.

2. Dinos were taken aboard the Ark, but then, as Brian suggests, they died off soon after as a result of environmental conditions created by the Flood. This makes me wonder why God would bother having Noah save their lives in the first place.

[Gandalf]

2. Dinos were taken aboard the Ark, but then, as Brian suggests, they died off soon after as a result of environmental conditions created by the Flood. This makes me wonder why God would bother having Noah save their lives in the first place.
So Job would know what He was talking about when He mentioned the Leviathan and Behemoth? ;)

[Valpo]

If dinos were around right before the Flood, there are 2 possibilities, neither of which makes much sense to me:

1. Dinos were killed off by the Flood itself, immediately. This violates verses in Gen 6 which say that Noah took 2 (or 7) of each kind of animal abord the Ark.

2. Dinos were taken aboard the Ark, but then, as Brian suggests, they died off soon after as a result of environmental conditions created by the Flood. This makes me wonder why God would bother having Noah save their lives in the first place.


who are we to question God? what about saving people in general? why did God save Noah? might as well have started over

[middletree]

who are we to question God?

I didn't question God. I questioned the sensibility of the theory put forth by some people trying to hold onto their doctrine so tight that they'll speculate on matters that God didn't make clear.

what about saving people in general? why did God save Noah? might as well have started over

Not an option. God had already promised in Genesis 3 that He would bring forth a Messiah who would be a descendent of Eve.

[NotMyOwn]

darwin = natural selection

natural selection is completely Biblical... and factual. micro-evolution good... macro-evolution bad.

From what I have read, most people on the Creation Science side do not dispute micro-evolution. If you think about it, people experience a sort of micro-evolution every time the season changes. The debate is macro-evolution (ape to man, fish to reptiles, reptiles to birds).

[Valpo]

I didn't question God. I questioned the sensibility of the theory put forth by some people trying to hold onto their doctrine so tight that they'll speculate on matters that God didn't make clear.



Not an option. God had already promised in Genesis 3 that He would bring forth a Messiah who would be a descendent of Eve.


i know, thats my point, God does what God does, I mean if you're going to question why God created dinos in the first place bc they were eventually gonna die off and knew that, then whyd He even create humans, or better yet unbelievers? Thats all I was trying to get at

[middletree]

if you're going to question why God created dinos in the first place bc they were eventually gonna die off
But I didn't say that.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Valpo]

If dinos were around right before the Flood, there are 2 possibilities, neither of which makes much sense to me:

1. Dinos were killed off by the Flood itself, immediately. This violates verses in Gen 6 which say that Noah took 2 (or 7) of each kind of animal abord the Ark.

2. Dinos were taken aboard the Ark, but then, as Brian suggests, they died off soon after as a result of environmental conditions created by the Flood. This makes me wonder why God would bother having Noah save their lives in the first place.

i suppose i misinterpreted this

[Evanescence]

If dinos were around right before the Flood, there are 2 possibilities, neither of which makes much sense to me:

1. Dinos were killed off by the Flood itself, immediately. This violates verses in Gen 6 which say that Noah took 2 (or 7) of each kind of animal abord the Ark.

2. Dinos were taken aboard the Ark, but then, as Brian suggests, they died off soon after as a result of environmental conditions created by the Flood. This makes me wonder why God would bother having Noah save their lives in the first place.

Dino's on the ark? Please, you can't possibly believe that....
The ark would have to be 1000 times bigger and there would clearly be discussion of that. Putting T-rex in a pen? Please.....lol...

Dino's and the eco-system were TOTALLY different than anything this planet has seen for thousands of years.

I don't know how many Dino species there are....*Thinks Google* but there were SOOOO, many it is staggering.

As for the flood. I don't believe the whole earth was flooded and all the animals were killed. I think this is onbe persons perception on the whole thing. An exaggerated claim based on a tremendous tragedy and extreme turn of events...

Dino's existed a LONG, LONG time before the bible was even thought of. But, if this could be proven, Christians would still syand by the bible and be stubborn....

Man evolved from the first Republicans......lol

[Grank]

who are we to question God? what about saving people in general? why did God save Noah? might as well have started over
i think God is big enough to handle a few questions

[Grank]

Dino's on the ark? Please, you can't possibly believe that....
The ark would have to be 1000 times bigger and there would clearly be discussion of that. Putting T-rex in a pen? Please.....lol...

Dino's and the eco-system were TOTALLY different than anything this planet has seen for thousands of years.

I don't know how many Dino species there are....*Thinks Google* but there were SOOOO, many it is staggering.

As for the flood. I don't believe the whole earth was flooded and all the animals were killed. I think this is onbe persons perception on the whole thing. An exaggerated claim based on a tremendous tragedy and extreme turn of events...

Dino's existed a LONG, LONG time before the bible was even thought of. But, if this could be proven, Christians would still syand by the bible and be stubborn....

Man evolved from the first Republicans......lol
because noah couldn't have either used baby dinos or a couple of eggs... that's plain luda, holla!


are you say'n that the creation wasn't in 6 days... that it was over a very large quantity of time?

[middletree]

Dino's on the ark? Please, you can't possibly believe that....

This is a major case of taking my post out of context. Read the first few words. I said, if dinos were around at the time of the Flood, then they either (1) got on the boat; or (2) didn't get on the boat. This seems to be beyond dispute. This is an either/or thing. Either they got on the ark or not. Period. That's all I said. Once that was established, I then said why neither of those choices made sense to me, thereby establishing the fact that I don't believe they were around at the time of Noah.

[ObiShawn]

Dino's on the ark? Please, you can't possibly believe that....He doesn't -


If dinos were around right before the Flood, there are 2 possibilities, neither of which makes much sense to me

-----

As for the flood. I don't believe the whole earth was flooded and all the animals were killed. I think this is onbe persons perception on the whole thing. An exaggerated claim based on a tremendous tragedy and extreme turn of events...It isn't clear just how far man and animals migrated, but this according to this verse -

Gen 6:7
7 So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."
(NKJ) . . . .the flood would have had to cover enough of an area to destroy "both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air." Also the following two verses both state that it was teh whole world, not just an area to had been flooded.

Gen 6:13
13 And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.(NKJ, bold is mine)Gen 9:11
11 "Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."
(NKJ)

----

Man evolved from the first Republicans......lolAnd then Satan convinced the woman to eat the fruit and become the first Liberal and it's been down hill every since! :D

[Evanescence]

This is a major case of taking my post out of context. Read the first few words. I said, if dinos were around at the time of the Flood, then they either (1) got on the boat; or (2) didn't get on the boat. This seems to be beyond dispute. This is an either/or thing. Either they got on the ark or not. Period. That's all I said. Once that was established, I then said why neither of those choices made sense to me, thereby establishing the fact that I don't believe they were around at the time of Noah.

I wasn't implying that this was your WHOLE thought...but many peoples.

I've heard this theory from other people for a long time now.

I was just saying that overall, I'm not buying it. Dino's and that eco-system were IMO, destroyed long before the Flood......and perhaps Adam and Eve.

Grank asked about he age of the earth? 6000 yrs old? I don't think so.....but I don't know for sure. You can beleieve the bible historically and thats fine. But for me, i think there is a serious breakdown in a timeline in Genesis.

I don't know how old it is...but it's surely older than 6000 yrs old. To me it is just plain, God given common sense....

[ObiShawn]

I don't know how old it is...but it's surely older than 6000 yrs old. To me it is just plain, God given common sense....According to the geneologies, the lineage of Adam covers aproxiamtely 8000 years, but the earth is much older and was already covered in water.

Gen 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
(NKJ)

[Evanescence]

According to the geneologies, the lineage of Adam covers aproxiamtely 8000 years, but the earth is much older and was already covered in water.

Interesting...please explain....

[ObiShawn]

Interesting...please explain....That's what I posted the scriptures for, so you could see for yourself. I'm sorry if that sentence comes off as smart alec, I dont' mean for it to, I'm just saying that there isn't much more to say than what the scriptures state, which is why I posted them.

[middletree]

I wasn't implying that this was your WHOLE thought...but many peoples.

I've heard this theory from other people for a long time now.


Me too. And my above post was actually explaining why I don't buy it.

You can beleieve the bible historically and thats fine. But for me, i think there is a serious breakdown in a timeline in Genesis.

I don't know how old it is...but it's surely older than 6000 yrs old.

The Gap theory reconciles both and old earth and the 6000 years since Adam. That alone makes it cool, but the fact that the AIG website opposes it is a bonus ;)

[middletree]

As for Genesis v.2, it's more than just being about being under water. It says it was chaos. A mess. Possibly something that had been destroyed.

[ObiShawn]

As for Genesis v.2, it's more than just being about being under water. It says it was chaos. A mess. Possibly something that had been destroyed.I agree. A pre-Adamic creation would give room for a lot of things that creationist, scientist, and evolutionist have trouble reconciling.

Verse 2 hints at this especially with these specific words -


Gen 1:2
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
(NKJ)

without form -
8414 tohuw (to'-hoo);

from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain:

KJV-- confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

void -
922 bohuw (bo'-hoo);

from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:

KJV-- emptiness, void.

darkness -
2822 choshek (kho-shek');

from 2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively, misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness:

KJV-- dark (-ness), night, obscurity.

[Valpo]

Dino's on the ark? Please, you can't possibly believe that....
The ark would have to be 1000 times bigger and there would clearly be discussion of that. Putting T-rex in a pen? Please.....lol...

Dino's and the eco-system were TOTALLY different than anything this planet has seen for thousands of years.

I don't know how many Dino species there are....*Thinks Google* but there were SOOOO, many it is staggering.

As for the flood. I don't believe the whole earth was flooded and all the animals were killed. I think this is onbe persons perception on the whole thing. An exaggerated claim based on a tremendous tragedy and extreme turn of events...

Dino's existed a LONG, LONG time before the bible was even thought of. But, if this could be proven, Christians would still syand by the bible and be stubborn....

Man evolved from the first Republicans......lol

you know what else works in debate/discussion...stubborn arrogance from liberals

a chihuaua (spell check?) and a pitbull...are they not dogs? humor me...

[Gandalf]

Dino's on the ark? Please, you can't possibly believe that....
The ark would have to be 1000 times bigger and there would clearly be discussion of that. Putting T-rex in a pen? Please.....lol...
Who said Noah took adult specimens? Could've been hatchlings... surely they took more than a year to grow to full size. I don't know one way or the other whether there were dinosaurs on the ark (and I don't think it's really all that important), but it's certainly plausible that there could've been.
Dino's existed a LONG, LONG time before the bible was even thought of. But, if this could be proven, Christians would still syand by the bible and be stubborn....
I'll have to disagree with you there, considering I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of the Creator of everything, including dinosaurs. He'd certainly thought of it long before anything else existed.

[middletree]

a chihuaua (spell check?) and a pitbull...are they not dogs? humor me...
The problem with chijuajuas is that they think they are pit bulls.

[middletree]

I'll have to disagree with you there, considering I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of the Creator of everything, including dinosaurs. He'd certainly thought of it long before anything else existed.

Nothing in the bible disputes the idea of dinos living long before man. You just need to read the bible right ;)

[Valpo]

The problem with chijuajuas is that they think they are pit bulls.

lol true...but my point is that they are both canines, Noah was to take two of every "kind" or species, what have you...so it is plausible to have maybe a couple "little" guys on the ark or maybe as I think Gandalf suggested, why not hatchlings? That's really all I was trying to get at, and I dont even think you questioned this but you humored me haha..so if the size of an animal God created is an issue that all of the sudden, rhinos, elephants, giraffes, etc werent all there and this story becomes crap

[bholdj]

It is true that this hasn't been proven. But the possibility isn't ruled out by the bible, and that's the important point here..

my point exactly :D

seems like yall have been busy in this thread :cool:

[bholdj]

Dino's existed a LONG, LONG time before the bible was even thought of.


Dude, E, seriously, I know your trying to make a point, but surley your not saying the dinos were around before God given the fact that Gods inspired word comes from Him.

Maybe you think the bible was in "pre-publishing" stages during the era of the dinosaurs i don't know :D :D .

[HotWireD]

This is a fine point, because they can claim all the scientific theories they want, but the science community has forged fossils to make them look like species they really werent and they have screwed up ages of fossils, but aside from all that the crux of their argument concerning evolution is MIA! No one has ever found a fossil of an animal in an inbetween stage of evolving from say an ape to a man or a velociraptor and a bird, it just doesnt exist

Not only have they not found intermediate species between ape to man or velociraptor and bird, they have not found intermediate species between one type of ape and another, or between one type of velociraptor and another type of velociraptor...

...but the science community has forged fossils to make them look like species they really werent...

Well, some scientists are well meaning - they know they are right and just because they cannot find the evidence to back up their theories does not mean they should not try to reveal the truth to everyone else... (tongue in cheek comment)

...and they have screwed up ages of fossils,...
If a fossil is found in the wrong place then it is an 'anomoly' - it is better to destroy it or pack it in a box at the back of a museum somewhere with insufficient paperwork to allow a subsequent researcher to properly examine it. Fossils without the correct paperwork are not examined by scientists, they would never be able to get their research papers published.

I have seen few people loose their tempers in the scientific community - I have seen a few paleaontologists 'lose it' when confronted by a fossil in the wrong place. Usually the reply involves "look I am a qualified scientist, you are just an amateur so believe me when I say you did not find that fossil where you think you did" or "you are wrong, I am right", or "you are wrong, I, and all the other scientists are right" or just denial. I have yet to hear a palaeontologist say "I think you may be mistaken, but we had better go and look at the site to make sure, this may be a very important discovery that put my science on its head!" (yet another tongue in cheek comment froma crime scene examiner - who is expected to be impartial in my job and see 'both sides' of an argument to be able to do his job properly, who also happens to have a Bachelor of Science degree in Zoology, majoring in Palaeontolgy who gets rather disappointed with how patronising and condesending some scientists can be sometimes)

Charles Darwin had his "revelation" on the Galapagos Islands after observing many species that were similar to ones he had had seen in South America. Specifically, there was a bird (cannot remember which one for the life of me) that when there was plentiful food, the babies were born with small, narrow beaks in order to enable easier eating. When food was scarce, the babies were born with wider, stouter beaks in order to enable the eating of bigger berries, nuts and the like.

All this proves is micro-evolution. They were still the same birds, just adapting to the environment. Same with the similar species he observed. They were the same , yet had adapted to the Galapagos environment.

The birds were Finches.
I see no problem with animals changing (adapting) to their environment from generation to another. It would make sense for this to be able to happen to allow them to adapt and survive when there is environmental change, or a change in food types.

There is variation in offspring amongst all sexually reproducing species - some characteristic being inherited from the male and others from the female.

If a bird has offspring with a variation in beak size it is, in my opinion, common sense that the ones with larger beaks would be able to consume larger seeds whereas their brothers and sisters who have smaller beaks may die out if smaller seeds are not available - or they could start eating, or trying to eat other types of food due to them being hungry and experimenting with the other types of food - insects, leaves, whatever.

Where the babies have larger beaks and the ones with smaller beaks die out, you would end up with birds with larger beaks breeding with birds with larger beaks and passing on the characteristic of even larger beaks.

Generations later, the birds with the large beaks would hang around the plants that provide their prefered food type and therefore mate with like minded individuals, any other birds arriving may hang around near their own prefered food type plants and breed with their own like minded friends etc. If you hang around bars, you probably would find a mate in the bars. If you hang around in libraries, you would probably find a mate in the library... that does not mean that library-frequenting humans are a different species from barfly humans, just that they have different habits and do not bump into each other very often.

This does not mean that if there was a disaster, and all the libraries closed, the library-visiting people would not be able to find suitable mates elsewhere, even looking in the bars.

In my opinion, the ability to adapt to the local climate/food supply/ecosystem is a wonder that shows the possibility of 'design' and just how amazing creation is!


I'm glad you see this, but many Creationists insist that all life forms are exactly the way God made them the first week of creation.

It is true that this hasn't been proven. But the possibility isn't ruled out by the bible, and that's the important point here. There are some who preach that to teach that species to evolve into other species is somehow anti-biblical, when in truth, the bible never says anything of the sort.


Agreed, in my opinion, why should a life form design be 'fixed in stone', if I cannot find my favourite food in the supermarket I do not starve to death, I vary my diet. Why should animals and plants have to die rather than adapt?

I believe both assumptions are correct. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the theory that the dinosaurs became extinct as a result of the Flood is invalid; it just means it didn't happen instantaneously - there would likely be massive climate changes after a global flood; it's likely extinctions would occur among creatures unable to adapt... but this process would take time; they wouldn't all instantly die, just may not ever achieve enough population to survive as a species in the long run. Such a flood could explain the fossil record, many geological formations (Grand Canyon, etc.), and later extinctions. It's not the only possible explanation, but it's not invalidated by a possible dinosaur species still existing for a time after the flood.
If dinos were around right before the Flood, there are 2 possibilities, neither of which makes much sense to me:

1. Dinos were killed off by the Flood itself, immediately. This violates verses in Gen 6 which say that Noah took 2 (or 7) of each kind of animal abord the Ark.

2. Dinos were taken aboard the Ark, but then, as Brian suggests, they died off soon after as a result of environmental conditions created by the Flood. This makes me wonder why God would bother having Noah save their lives in the first place.


Agreed, regional climate change kills off animals even today. They would not instantly die, they may have had less and less fecund offspring in each succesive generation. There have been observations that dinosaurs did not die off instantly - one theory comments on the thickness of the egg shells in successive generations - the eggs shells got thinner and thinner each generation (possibly due to climate change or a radical change in diet), eventually the eggs being laid were less likely to survive long enough for the embryonic dinosaur to develop into a viable juvenille. There may have been difficulties in the eggs retaining water long enough for the embryo to develop.

i know, thats my point, God does what God does, I mean if you're going to question why God created dinos in the first place bc they were eventually gonna die off and knew that, then whyd He even create humans, or better yet unbelievers? Thats all I was trying to get at

yes, why create a species that cannot adapt knowing full well that it would not survive forever and be at risk at any stage of climate change, ecosystem change or food supply change.

Just in case I did not put enough 'in my opinion' quotes in, here is another...

...'In my opinion, of course'

[Sharon]

Holy smoley Mr BArron.....I think my brain just fried!!! just kidding of course!!!!

[Gandalf]

Nothing in the bible disputes the idea of dinos living long before man. You just need to read the bible right ;)
True... Nor does science show any actual evidence that they didn't live while men were around. Really, there seems more evidence they did coexist with us... not just the fossilized footprints, etc. that are commonly known, but even the common mythology of "dragons" and other such creatures in cultures around the world would seem to indicate a common knowledge of some real creature that fit the description of a dinosaur while men were around. We don't actually know when they went extinct, but there's as much evidence to support the idea that they coexisted with people as there is evidence to support the idea they didn't. Whichever presupposition you start with, you'll find "evidence" to support your view - really, the facts we have are entirely inconclusive.

[Sharon]

Did someone say dragons???

Job 41: 18-21 - "His snorting throws out flashes flashes of light: his eyes are like the rays of the dawn. Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke pours from his nostrils, as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds. His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth"


hmmmmmm..............just a little something to add to the mix

[Grank]

Did someone say dragons???

Job 41: 18-21 - "His snorting throws out flashes flashes of light: his eyes are like the rays of the dawn. Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke pours from his nostrils, as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds. His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth"


hmmmmmm..............just a little something to add to the mix
clearly it's speaking of a crocodile... pfft...

[Sharon]

clearly it's speaking of a crocodile... pfft...

Or someone in need of a serious pack of Tic Tacs.....:rolleyes:

[ObiShawn]

Or someone in need of a serious pack of Tic Tacs.....:rolleyes:Surely they had acid reflex problems even back then, I could imagine eating a porcupine would do that.

[Sharon]

Surely they had acid reflex problems even back then, I could imagine eating a porcupine would do that.


*insert smiley here*

I DO think that Job 41 is a very interesting read in light of the dinosaur / evolution debate though........hmmmmm

[ObiShawn]

Yes, I agree. Sorry for going off topic. Gotta leave for church though, so I'll make a more relevant post later on.

[Sharon]

Yes, I agree. Sorry for going off topic. Gotta leave for church though, so I'll make a more relevant post later on.


Don't be sorry....this thread needed some lightening up for a sec....anyway......back to topic

[Evanescence]

Dude, E, seriously, I know your trying to make a point, but surley your not saying the dinos were around before God given the fact that Gods inspired word comes from Him.

Maybe you think the bible was in "pre-publishing" stages during the era of the dinosaurs i don't know :D :D .

No, I meant taht they were here long before BIBLE times as we know them...

I don't think anyone can truly know the age of the Earth and my theory/belief is that it is WAY older than the bible speaks of...or how we interpret it.

Dino's were long gone before modern/civilized man was here...fossil footsteps or not. These large animals the bible speaks of are clearly soemthing else. A Brontosaurus or T-Rex would have surely been spoken of in a much more clear way.

The Dino era was of extreme instability and chaos. Man would have had a hard time dealing with it. It was a time of mass predatory wildlife and perilous existance. Find me fossilized bones of man right beside a T-Rex and I'll be more open minded to it.

What killed off the Dinos and that eco system was cataclystmic (sp) and did so in a swift fashion. My feeling is that it was a meteor....this seems to be a logical explaination. Simple math again...

As for Darwin? My wife says she thought she read he was going to go to Semenary but never made it. Theories on the animal kingdom are tricky, especially when God is in the picture.

[hefdaddy42]

No, I meant taht they were here long before BIBLE times as we know them...
Agreed. Evanescence is right on the money.

[musicjaytee]

Evolution's funny. I get the 'survival of the fittest' theory, but that doesn't really go against the Bible. That's just logic. Evolution, tho, is funny.

Look grandpa, I'm starting to grow a shell. It should be fully developed in my grandchildren, so if we survive until then, our species should be protected from falling rocks in the future. It's a good thing we just suddenly started developing these for no apparant reason but need!!!

[Grank]

Dino's were long gone before modern/civilized man was here...fossil footsteps or not. These large animals the bible speaks of are clearly soemthing else. A Brontosaurus or T-Rex would have surely been spoken of in a much more clear way. yes, i agree. they clearly should have used the word dinosaur. then everybody would know what was go'n on.



The Dino era was of extreme instability and chaos. Man would have had a hard time dealing with it. It was a time of mass predatory wildlife and perilous existance. Find me fossilized bones of man right beside a T-Rex and I'll be more open minded to it.


show me a picture of the extreme instability and chaos and i'll be more open minded about it.

[bholdj]

The Dino era was of extreme instability and chaos. Man would have had a hard time dealing with it. It was a time of mass predatory wildlife and perilous existance. Find me fossilized bones of man right beside a T-Rex and I'll be more open minded to it.
.

E, your killing me smalls :D .

So man can deal with God himself walking among them, appearing to them (moses seeing Gods back), but not dinosaurs?

Somehow, if we made it through Gods presense leading the hebrews out of Egypt to Mount Saini, or the apostles watching Jesus being Transfigured or ressurected, then i think we could tolerate a few dinosaurs :D

[Howlin' Wolf]

E, your killing me smalls :D .

So man can deal with God himself walking among them, appearing to them (moses seeing Gods back), but not dinosaurs?

Somehow, if we made it through Gods presense leading the hebrews out of Egypt to Mount Saini, or the apostles watching Jesus being Transfigured or ressurected, then i think we could tolerate a few dinosaurs :D

ask E what a leviathan was. watch him write a long post about how small minded and oppressive to christianity you are.

[bholdj]

ask E what a leviathan was. watch him write a long post about how small minded and oppressive to christianity you are.

E is a fireballer till the end, but i will give him credit, he is so me 5 years ago when i was going through the whole renewel in my faith thing. Some questions i asked were so stinkin irrelevant, some of them may have made Christ duck his head in his hands they were so silly, but they were questions about the living God. God was faithful to me then, im sure He will be to E now. :cool:

[bdfwinn]

Without time to read more than page 1 and 6 here is my 2 cents.

Actually my two issues...

"Irreversible Complexity"

"Gap Theory"

Bill