Are dinosaurs in the bible?

[MarkFL]

I am talking more about a bridge between creation and evolution

Yes, I was just speaking about the topic of whether there are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible. Evolution cannot be denied without turning a blind eye to all kinds of evidence.

 

[Lamb]

Yes, I was just speaking about the topic of whether there are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible. Evolution cannot be denied without turning a blind eye to all kinds of evidence.

Scientific evidence? You mean the kind that keeps changing every hundred years or so? Had to throw that in there!

 

[MarkFL]

Scientific evidence? You mean the kind that keeps changing every hundred years or so? Had to throw that in there!

The evidence doesn't change, only its interpretation as new evidence is found that increases our knowledge. Our understanding continually gets refined and evolves to get closer and closer to the truth, which is the real beauty of science. One thing that hasn't changed in the 150+ years since Darwin first published his theory is that it continues to be supported by new evidence as it comes to light. It has stood the test of time and is accepted by the scientific community as fact.

There is much more evidence in support of evolution than there is for Einstein's theory of gravity (which is also well-supported by evidence), yet because general relativity doesn't contradict religious beliefs, there is no controversy.

 

[Alithis]

The evidence doesn't change, only its interpretation as new evidence is found that increases our knowledge. Our understanding continually gets refined and evolves to get closer and closer to the truth, which is the real beauty of science. One thing that hasn't changed in the 150+ years since Darwin first published his theory is that it continues to be supported by new evidence as it comes to light. It has stood the test of time and is accepted by the scientific community as fact.

There is much more evidence in support of evolution than there is for Einstein's theory of gravity (which is also well-supported by evidence), yet because general relativity doesn't contradict religious beliefs, there is no controversy.

there is no such evidence ..only a choice of what we chose to believe. this is evident as there is much evidence throughout recent history .(last 1000 years )that man coexisted with dinosaurs .. but evolutionist "choose" to disbelieve it . conjecture is not evidence ..all so called evidence is disputable .
and if evolution were true i will cut my wrists tomorrow for the futility of existence.

 

[MarkFL]

there is no such evidence ..only a choice of what we chose to believe. this is evident as there is much evidence throughout recent history .(last 1000 years )that man coexisted with dinosaurs .. but evolutionist "choose" to disbelieve it . conjecture is not evidence ..all so called evidence is disputable .
and if evolution were true i will cut my wrists tomorrow for the futility of existence.

Wow..no evidence for evolution? That's really a sad thing to read, to know that people can think this way. There are mountains of evidence in support of this principle.

Begin here:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Can you point to any evidence that has not been thoroughly debunked that supports the notion that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time?

Evolution is certainly true, but please do not cut your wrists when you take the time to educate yourself.

 

[psalms 91]

Wow..no evidence for evolution? That's really a sad thing to read, to know that people can think this way. There are mountains of evidence in support of this principle.

Begin here:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Can you point to any evidence that has not been thoroughly debunked that supports the notion that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time?

Evolution is certainly true, but please do not cut your wrists when you take the time to educate yourself.

As you have pointed out many times it is only a theory and therefore no conclusive proof has been submitted. It is a theory

 

[MarkFL]

As you have pointed out many times it is only a theory and therefore no conclusive proof has been submitted. It is a theory

Bill, I have to say I am surprised that you are saying "it's only a theory." You are making the common mistake of confusing hypothesis with theory. It's not just come idea someone has put forth with no backing evidence. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Evolution has solidly stood that test for over 150 years. Gravity is also a theory, in the form of general relativity, for which there is a great deal of supporting evidence.

 

[psalms 91]

Bill, I have to say I am surprised that you are saying "it's only a theory." You are making the common mistake of confusing hypothesis with theory. It's not just come idea someone has put forth with no backing evidence. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Evolution has solidly stood that test for over 150 years. Gravity is also a theory, in the form of general relativity, for which there is a great deal of supporting evidence.

I dont disagree with this but I would point out that before the big bang theory there was another one that was well thought of and who knows that may end up being disproved as well

 

[MarkFL]

I dont disagree with this but I would point out that before the big bang theory there was another one that was well thought of and who knows that may end up being disproved as well

True, sometime better theories come to light which supplant existing theories. However, in the case of evolution this is extremely unlikely. A better version of evolution may likely come about, but it will still be what we call evolution.

A better theory of gravity is needed as well, because general relativity is a classical theory, and as such does not include quantum fluctuations. But this doesn't mean that general relativity is just plain wrong, it just means it isn't entirely complete. It still works very well on the macro scale, and only breaks down under certain extreme conditions.

 

[davedajobauk]

Something more on this subject

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dinosaurs-and-the-bible/

 

[MarkFL]

Something more on this subject

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dinosaurs-and-the-bible/

Mr. Ham states:

When Did Dinosaurs Live?

The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs “ruled the Earth” for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.

Mr. Ham seems to be in need of some very basic science education...which I bring to you from Roger C. Wiens, PhD:

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

So you see fossils actually do come labelled with their ages...if you know how to read them.

 

[davedajobauk]

I would offer for discussion, the fact that we HUMANS share so-many genes and chromosomes with plants and animals

Did they rub off on the plants and animals ?

Or, were they made from the same 'stuff' differently ?


Isotopes decay at a steady pace.......
and, knowing the speed of decay of the various isotopes, one has a very reliable chronological calculator (?)

? How long was each of God's 'seven days' ?

Before the Earth was made anew, ~following God's destruction of the old Earth
many things were placed out of sight of mankind
Seas and Oceans covered lands walked by man and dinosaurs alike

Fossilized bones of man are not found, amongst fossilized dinosaur bones

Just something more to digest here

 

[Alithis]

Mr. Ham states:

When Did Dinosaurs Live?

The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs “ruled the Earth” for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.

Mr. Ham seems to be in need of some very basic science education...which I bring to you from Roger C. Wiens, PhD:

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

So you see fossils actually do come labelled with their ages...if you know how to read them.

i dont believe in Radiometric dating-

 

[Alithis]

Wow..no evidence for evolution? That's really a sad thing to read, to know that people can think this way. There are mountains of evidence in support of this principle.

Begin here:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Can you point to any evidence that has not been thoroughly debunked that supports the notion that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time?

Evolution is certainly true, but please do not cut your wrists when you take the time to educate yourself.

pointing to more people saying a thing does not make a thing "truth" .it just means more people are saying it . none of the evidences mean a hill of beans to me .. they offer me nothing ..such an over whelming nothing that were i to believe it i would end my futile existence now.

 

[MarkFL]

pointing to more people saying a thing does not make a thing "truth" .it just means more people are saying it . none of the evidences mean a hill of beans to me .. they offer me nothing ..such an over whelming nothing that were i to believe it i would end my futile existence now.

I take it then that you did not actually look at the evidence. That's your choice.

 

[MarkFL]

i dont believe in Radiometric dating-

Well, you can choose not to believe whatever you want...fortunately we cannot invalidate a truth just because we don't like it.

 

[MarkFL]

I would offer for discussion, the fact that we HUMANS share so-many genes and chromosomes with plants and animals

Did they rub off on the plants and animals ?

Or, were they made from the same 'stuff' differently ?

Or does all life share a common ancestry, since genetic material is passed along by reproduction.

Isotopes decay at a steady pace.......
and, knowing the speed of decay of the various isotopes, one has a very reliable chronological calculator (?)

Yes.

? How long was each of God's 'seven days' ?

You tell me.

Before the Earth was made anew, ~following God's destruction of the old Earth
many things were placed out of sight of mankind
Seas and Oceans covered lands walked by man and dinosaurs alike

Fossilized bones of man are not found, amongst fossilized dinosaur bones

Just something more to digest here

One problem here...there is no credible evidence for a catastrophic global flood during the time hominids have existed.

 

[Alithis]

Well, you can choose not to believe whatever you want...fortunately we cannot invalidate a truth just because we don't like it.

you have no truth to validate . it is folly you speak . God is ..and he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him .
so as you see .. it is your choice to disbelieve him because you refuse HIS evidence .

 

[MarkFL]

you have no truth to validate . it is folly you speak . God is ..and he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him .
so as you see .. it is your choice to disbelieve him because you refuse HIS evidence .

That is your belief, not fact backed with compelling evidence. It certainly is my choice not to believe things for which there is not compelling evidence. Denying evolution is dishonest given all the compelling evidence, while denying gods is not.

 

[tango]

Isotopes decay at a steady pace.......
and, knowing the speed of decay of the various isotopes, one has a very reliable chronological calculator (?)

This is a serious question because I genuinely don't know the answer.

We know that isotopes decay at a steady pace, and we can measure the proportions of the isotopes present today. But how does that help us with aging unless we also know the starting levels of the different isotopes?

For example, if some mythical element 23C decays into 21C with a half-life of one year, and we can see that in a given sample there 90% 21C and 10% 23C we know that a year ago there would have been 80% 21C and 20% 23C, two years ago there would have been 60% 21C and 40% 23C, three years ago it would have been 20% 21C and 80% 23C. But how do we know whether the sample is one, two or three years old unless we know how much 23C there was to begin with?

I realise radioactive decay isn't always as convenient as an isotope of a given element decaying into another isotope of the same element, and with so much radioactive decay going on there may be factors that help corroborate an indication of age. But if someone could explain how that works (or give useful links to read) I'd appreciate it.