Slashdot Mirror

Land animals (this includes dinosaurs) and man were created on Day 6 about 6,000 years ago--so dinosaurs lived at the same time as people.

Adam sinned and brought death, disease and bloodshed into the world. Before then, no dinsaur could have died.

A global Flood occurred about 1,656 years later, wiping out all land animals that breathe though nostrils (that weren't on the Ark). Thus billions of animals were buried quickly and formed fossils. This is when most dinosaur fossils formed.

Noah took two of every kind of land animal (seven of the clean' ones) on board an ocean-liner-sized Ark this included dinosaurs. For more information, see How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?

After the Flood, the descendants of those dinosaurs existed for a while with humans, and there seem to be eye-witness accounts of them, e.g. in Job 40:15 ff. and in the many dragon legends found around the world.

Eventually they all died out, except for possible rare sightings in uninhabited areas which have not been properly verified. The causes were probably no more dramatic than those that cause extinctions of other species, e.g. man's hunting, change of climate, loss of food source, fragmentation of habitat.
Taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs /dino_meteor.asp

PS. I'm not serious. Yes, that site has a LOT of fun stuff.

(Your link didn't work.) Nah, that's an old red herring. The adjacent biblical verses say that the vessel was a handsbreath in thickness, so if you measure from the inside you get pretty close to 3.14 depending on your assumptions about cubits, etc. See this mostly secular analysis or this more religiously-oriented site's explanation.

And I also found a brief article (from a non-religious website) describing how a Jewish rabbi named Nehemiah in ~150 AD first made the argument that the diameter of the tub was 10 cubits from outer rim to outer rim, whereas the 30 cubit circumference was measured around the inner rim.

I wouldn't consider these "proofs," just provocative re-examinations.

--LP

They dealt with this long ago, even AiG have an answer for this latest incidence of notionally feathery megalizards.

Geeky.org

Check out Answers In Genesis There is evidence for a Universe, World and life coming from a supreme being. Consider for one moment how far creation science does go to explain the creation of Life. Before anyone make there own decision as to how the universe was created, they need to study all viable evidence. If you are willing to believe that humans evolved from a rock! Then you should be willing to consider that we were created by an everlasting God, read more about how creation can explain the Universe at Answers In Genesis. I challenge you to consider the truth.

Check out Answers In Genesis There is evidence for a Universe, World and life coming from a supreme being. Consider for one moment how far creation science does go to explain the creation of Life. Before anyone make there own decision as to how the universe was created, they need to study all viable evidence. If you are willing to believe that humans evolved from a rock! Then you should be willing to consider that we were created by an everlasting God, read more about how creation can explain the Universe at Answers In Genesis. I challenge you to consider the truth.

I have never head such a lot of unscientific nonsense in my life.

You cannot prove that something like this is not true. This is about the most basic logical axiom that there is.

Furthermore, 'evidence' of evolution from supposed changes in genes is nothing more than evidence.

We have:

1. one set of genes - we are required to accept very many things here; the validity of the analysis of those genes, the validity of the research, the validity of the samples, etc.
2. another set of genes - again, the same ASSUMPTIONS, which CAN NEVER BE PROVED for certain persist
3. a deduction from this that there is evolution.

To take 3, there is absolutely nothing that compels us to draw the deduction suggested. All it is a hypothesis, and one that assumes a large number of things - certainly not sufficient evidence to make people change their beliefs.

To consider the wider issue, there are just as many problems (and more) with evolutionism as there are with creationism. For example, the evolutionists assert the earth is billions of years old, and yet they have not a shred of evidence for this. Their dating techniques, for example - the primary argument used by evolutionists for evolution is the fossil record.

Dating techniques are used to show that these fossils are supposedly millions of years old - and yet these same dating techniques have been shown to be unreliable to useless - thereby making their argument untenable. An example of this was where a rock, known only to be a few hundred years old, was dated at several million years.

In fact, there is no reliable evidence provided by the evolutionists to rebutt the very strong evidence (among others, the clear evidence of design in the world) that the earth was created a few thousand years ago.

I suggest that to get a balanced view on this, you read one of the many good creationist websites. For answers to each of the incorrect beliefs of evolutionists (don't forget, of course, that Dawin himself decided evolution was wrong shortly before his death), try here:

the myth of natural selection
the error of the fossil record

and some of the other creationist sites.

When you've done that, and only then, come back to me, and if you can provide *any* proof of evolution I will eat my hat.
--

I have never head such a lot of unscientific nonsense in my life.

You cannot prove that something like this is not true. This is about the most basic logical axiom that there is.

Furthermore, 'evidence' of evolution from supposed changes in genes is nothing more than evidence.

We have:

1. one set of genes - we are required to accept very many things here; the validity of the analysis of those genes, the validity of the research, the validity of the samples, etc.
2. another set of genes - again, the same ASSUMPTIONS, which CAN NEVER BE PROVED for certain persist
3. a deduction from this that there is evolution.

To take 3, there is absolutely nothing that compels us to draw the deduction suggested. All it is a hypothesis, and one that assumes a large number of things - certainly not sufficient evidence to make people change their beliefs.

To consider the wider issue, there are just as many problems (and more) with evolutionism as there are with creationism. For example, the evolutionists assert the earth is billions of years old, and yet they have not a shred of evidence for this. Their dating techniques, for example - the primary argument used by evolutionists for evolution is the fossil record.

Dating techniques are used to show that these fossils are supposedly millions of years old - and yet these same dating techniques have been shown to be unreliable to useless - thereby making their argument untenable. An example of this was where a rock, known only to be a few hundred years old, was dated at several million years.

In fact, there is no reliable evidence provided by the evolutionists to rebutt the very strong evidence (among others, the clear evidence of design in the world) that the earth was created a few thousand years ago.

I suggest that to get a balanced view on this, you read one of the many good creationist websites. For answers to each of the incorrect beliefs of evolutionists (don't forget, of course, that Dawin himself decided evolution was wrong shortly before his death), try here:

the myth of natural selection
the error of the fossil record

and some of the other creationist sites.

When you've done that, and only then, come back to me, and if you can provide *any* proof of evolution I will eat my hat.
--

Ok. Here goes (but it's late and I'm half asleep, so I'll try to do my best!)...

Evolution is fundamentally racist. Take, for example, when the first explorers went from England to Australia. They discovered the Aboriginal people and, very quickly, classed them as non-human---or at the very best a less-developed version of mankind.

Or take Hitler who believed that White people were superior to everyone else, and that other people (esp. Jews) should be destroyed. In doing so, of course, he believed that evolutionary `natural selection' was just taking it's course and that the `superior' `races' should get rid of the `inferior' ones.

This is completely different from the view that God created this world with one man, and one woman. If everyone decended from one man and woman there is no such thing as a `race' of people.

What we call different `races' are really the groups of people that separated at the event of the Tower of Babel (see Gen. 11). The separation of groups of people can quickly lead to different characteristics in the DNA coming out in the different groups. This leads to, for example, some groups of all black people, and some of all white. IIRC, there is less than 0.2% of DNA that changes all of the visible features in humans!

Take a look at http://www.answersingenesi s.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp for more information.

You are referring to the chemist who resigned from science in 1980 and now serves as the "adjunct professor of chemistry at the Institute for Creation Research"?

Chittick uses science to attack science, a curious position. Let's examine his credentials. Chittick got his PhD at a tier 3 school. He taught a two private colleges, the University of Puget Sound (a tier 3 school)and George Fox College (a highly rated private religious school with 1700 students).

Chittick also championed the Coso Artifact as a kind of Geode that was proof against evolution. Later the artifact was revealed to be a 1920s era Champion Spark plug. Chittick is not a brilliant scientist who is challenging the scientific norm. He is a buffoon with a little bit of knowledge and a whole lot of willingness to overlook inconvenient facts in favor of his faith.

All this, and more, can be learned by starting at the talk.origins site.

There's a guy over at http://www.answersingenesis.org/ that builds dinosaurs. Last time I looked they had a link to a picture of one he had just built. They're fairly impressive. Check it out---I never thought that anyone could build dinosaurs on their own!

Seeing light from faraway stars: If you accept that God created the stars to provide some night-time lighting for the organisms that He would put on earth, then naturally light waves would *already* have been propogating between the stars and the earth. Otherwise the stars would have served no purpose.

I have no problem with the existence of dinosaurs. As a matter of fact, the great flood described in Genesis 7-8 is one explanation for their extinction.

The "ologists" arrive at long age estimates due to radiometric dating and geologic information. Radiometric dating processes are far less reliable (especially for long term dating) than is widely believed. Geologic records are often explained just as well by the great flood as they are by "old earth" science.

There is significant evidence supporting creation rather than evolution. Here are a couple of good links that give a (scientific) creation perspective on many issues:

Creation Science

Answers in Genesis -- You may be particularly interested in the FAQ's on radiometric dating and young age evidence.

I hope this gives you some idea how an educated person can believe something other than evolution. I admit, it's not always easy when evolution theory is treated as fact and shoveled into your head all the way through grade school, high school, and college.

I don't know if you'll see this or not, but I'll try to revisit the dead thread in a few days if you'd like to discuss further.