7th grade questions

[Michael_G]

And yet there are no such bonafide fossils, Carl Baugh and the Creation Evidences Museum notwithstanding.
talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/retrack.html

I guess this is the source of your quoted material?
exchangedlife.com/Creation/dinosaurs.shtml

However,
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html

(emphasis mine)
Indeed!

It would be interesting if someone could find some incontrovertible evidence. I have yet to see any. All any of this demonstrates is that ancient peoples also had imaginations as active as those of people in modern times.

Well you can attempt to deny that man never walked with dinasours and claim that the pictures carvings etc are just plain false or someones immagination. What do you do with Bemouth in Job 40:15.

or other Scriptural discriptions of dinasour creatures

Dinosaurs In The Bible
Daniel 14:26-27 Slays a fire breathing Dragon, Isiah 27:1 **Leviathan **the twisting serpent, and he will **slay the dragon that is in the sea. Ps. 74: heads of the dragons on the waters. 14 Thou didst crush the heads of Leviathan. **2 Esdras 6:49 Then you singled out two of the living creatures; you named one of them Behemoth and the other Leviathan 2 Esdras 6:52 You let Leviathan live in the sea. You kept them both alive, so that your chosen people may feast on them at the time you choose.

**Flying Dinosaurs in Bible
**Isaiah 30:6 tells of a flying reptile like the pteranodon or Rhamphorhynchus.
Isaiah 30:6 (King James Version) "The burden of the beast of the south: into the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent…"
What is a flying serpent? - The only known reptiles with the ability to fly are the Pterosaurs. In this verse we see them described as living alongside the other animals. The flying serpents are used in the text with other animals we readily recognize. They are not set apart in any way as to conclude they are fictitious. In fact, the verse continues and speaks of men carrying their riches “upon the bunches of camels”. This makes it clear that these flying dinosaurs lived alongside mammals, and man.

 

[Michael_G]

And yet there are no such bonafide fossils, Carl Baugh and the Creation Evidences Museum notwithstanding.
talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/retrack.html

I guess this is the source of your quoted material?
exchangedlife.com/Creation/dinosaurs.shtml

However,
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html

(emphasis mine)
Indeed!

It would be interesting if someone could find some incontrovertible evidence. I have yet to see any. All any of this demonstrates is that ancient peoples also had imaginations as active as those of people in modern times.

Again. Well you can attempt to deny that man never walked with dinasours and claim that the pictures carvings etc are just plain false or someones immagination What do you do with Leviathan in Job

**Leviathan **has the following attributes according to Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1. This is only a partial listing—just enough to make the point.

• “No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.”
• “Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around?”
• “His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted.”
• “His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.”
• “Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins.”
• “On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear.”
• Leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea” (a paraphrase of Psalm 104 verses 25 and 26—get the exact sense by reading them yourself).
• Leviathan is a “reptile [1] that is in the sea.” (Isaiah 27:1)
  [1] Note: **The word translated “reptile” here is the Hebrew word tanniyn. This shows that “Leviathan” was also a “tanniyn” (dragon).
  **Unlike behemoth, who is huge, Leviathan is ferocious and terrifying. Many references (we have not listed them all) refer to the sea, so Leviathan is probably a sea creature. Although some bibles refer to Leviathan as an alligator or crocodile (and both of these are fierce) neither of these is a sea creature nor do they breath fire nor are their scales not penetrable by spear or sword. They like the water, but they spend much of their time on land. Further, the question “Who can open the doors of his face. . . .” implies that nobody can pry Leviathan’s jaws open. Yet we are all familiar with “alligator wrestlers” who routinely pry open an alligator’s jaws. Alligators do not match the description of Leviathan—and we are not done yet.
  The description of the scales is interesting. Several verses describe these great scales. Compared to Leviathan’s armor, iron is like straw and arrows cannot make it flee. Let’s face it, an arrow can do a lot of damage to a crocodile or alligator. This is not a description of either of them—or any living animal we are aware of.
  And now for the key ingredient: fire. It is hard to read Job 41:18-21 without realizing the Bible is telling us that Leviathan breathes fire. That alone will eliminate almost every living animal. Yes, there is one animal that can spew fire in today’s world. It is called a bombardier beetle. This beetle is a native of Central America, and has a nozzle in its hind end that acts like a little flame thrower. It sprays a high-temperature jet of gas (fueled by hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide with oxidative enzymes) for protection. Now, if a Central American beetle has a built-in flame thrower, so could Leviathan. By the way, crocodiles and alligators are out of the picture on this one, don’t you agree?

 

[Michael_G]

And yet there are no such bonafide fossils, Carl Baugh and the Creation Evidences Museum notwithstanding.
talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/retrack.html

I guess this is the source of your quoted material?
exchangedlife.com/Creation/dinosaurs.shtml

However,
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html

(emphasis mine)
Indeed!

It would be interesting if someone could find some incontrovertible evidence. I have yet to see any. All any of this demonstrates is that ancient peoples also had imaginations as active as those of people in modern times.

And Again you can attempt to deny that man never walked with dinasours and claim that the pictures carvings etc are just plain false or someones immagination

msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683
Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue

70-million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels

msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050324/050324_trex_softtissue_hlg10a.hlarge.jpgScience via AP
Tissue fragments from a Tyrannosaurus rex femur are shown at left, when it is flexible and resilient and when stretched (arrow) returns to its original shape. The middle photo shows the bone after it is air dried. The photo at right shows regions of bone showing fibrous character, not normally seen in fossil bone.

answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part11.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/images/200532421.jpg

CREDIT: M. H. Schweitzer​

Left: The flexible branching structures in the T. rex bone were justifiably identified as “blood vessels”. Soft tissues like blood vessels should not be there if the bones were 65 million years old.
Right: These microscopic structures were able to be squeezed out of some of the blood vessels, and can be seen to “look like cells” as the researchers said. So once again there is scope for Dr Schweitzer to ask the same question, “How could these cells last for 65 million years?”

Most experts agree that a fossil dating back tens of millions of years would have completely petrified over such an expanse of time

recently discovered T. rex bone negates the evolutionists’ archeological time line,

For example, in July 1994, scientists recovered soft tissue (red blood cells and traces of hemoglobin) in what was described as a “70-million-year-old T.rex fossil”; however, these soft tissues should have decomposed if they were millions of years old and not fossilized.

 

[EBSSTF4]

So by your insinuation Noah Ark and the flood account are basic fairy tale which drive people away from the faith when they are older?? Well then you would have to say the same about the NT and Christ and Peter ah. No wonder people are driven away from the faith by those who claim certain passages must be tale of some type.

I didn’t say that. By silly explanation I was referring to dinosaurs not fitting on the arc. I don’t know if it is true as written or not. The important thing is I get the point. It is easy to read it and go on. I would rather try to get the full message. When I was a kid it read like a ferry tail. The story was the point, not the message. I would like more people to read the Bible and the Catechism, get more of a textbook reading on the Catholic faith.

Your can debate a Protestant with the bible. A reasonable Catholic with the Bible, Catechism, and other church documents.

 

[Michael_G]

I didn’t say that. By silly explanation I was referring to dinosaurs not fitting on the arc. I don’t know if it is true as written or not. The important thing is I get the point. It is easy to read it and go on. I would rather try to get the full message. When I was a kid it read like a ferry tail. The story was the point, not the message. I would like more people to read the Bible and the Catechism, get more of a textbook reading on the Catholic faith.

Your can debate a Protestant with the bible. A reasonable Catholic with the Bible, Catechism, and other church documents.

My apologies! I misunderstood what you were saying, thinking along the lines that you were proposing Noah as tale, or as some evolutionists try to claim that it was just a local flood. I do apologize. As far as dinosaur fitting into the Ark: Noah would not have to take adult ones, he could have easily been supplied with baby dinasours, which would easily fit on the Ark.

 

[zian]

numerous ancient carvings and pictures throughout the world
genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm
angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinocarving.html

Well, it seems the Ica stones are not genuine artifacts either, hence the apparent depictions of known dinosaurs.
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_1.html

and

talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/dec05.html
(use the Find feature of your browser to search for “stones” and/or “ica” to find the relevent comment.)

 

[zian]

And Again you can attempt to deny that man never walked with dinasours and claim that the pictures carvings etc are just plain false or someones immagination

msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683
Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue

70-million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels
…etcetc …

Ah yes, the purported dino blood find -
never leave home without it …

Except for -
talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
(and numerous interesting links therein), and

talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html

 

[Michael_G]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael G forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*And Again you can attempt to deny that man never walked with dinasours and claim that the pictures carvings etc are just plain false or someones immagination

msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683
Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue

70-million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels
…etcetc …*

Ah yes, the purported dino blood find -
never leave home without it …

Except for -
talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
(and numerous interesting links therein), and

talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
“They are transparent, they are flexible,” said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and Montana State University, who conducted the study.

“Preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before.”

The finding certainly shows fossilization does not proceed as science had assumed, Schweitzer said. Since the discovery, she has found similar samples of soft tissue in two other Tyrannosaur fossils and a hadrosaur.

Ah yes, the infamous talkorigins with the answers to every evolution critique. Let’s see which is more credible here the idea that because we are assured by evolutionist that dinos are millions and millions years old therefore the intact soft tissue does not prove anything, we just have to rethink how fossilization and decay really occurs so as to preserve soft tissue over millions and millions of years, since what science had assumed on this issue is wrong. or that intact soft tissue really does indicate that their time line is nothing but nonsence.

 

[zian]

Michael G:

An interesting popular account of these recent discoveries.

It should be interesting to read the technical journal accounts on these related topics. For example:
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/307/5717/1952

Removal of the mineral phase

reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience. (emphasis mine) Perhaps, as you have already noted (and quoted Schweitzer), this simply does mean that

The finding certainly shows fossilization does not proceed as science had assumed, Schweitzer said.

Here’s another interesting read on “bone tissue”
talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/osteocalcin.html
Michael G:

Ah yes, the infamous talkorigins with the answers to every evolution critique.

Or perhaps this is a valuable clearinghouse for information related to the scientific enterprise and the many claims of Young Earth Creationists. I find it interesting, as the above link shows, that articles at talkorigins are replete with references and links to the web articles that they are discussing. Articles at the YEC sites, however, only rarely have anything like the same level of linkage to criticism of their posted information.

Why is that??
Michael G:

Let’s see which is more credible here the idea that
(1) because we are assured by evolutionist that dinos are millions and millions years old therefore the intact soft tissue does not prove anything, we just have to rethink how fossilization and decay really occurs so as to preserve soft tissue over millions and millions of years, since what science had assumed on this issue is wrong.
or that (2)intact soft tissue really does indicate that their time line is nothing but nonsence.

The timeline is supported by much more than the currently understanding of how fossilization occurs. I recommend you spend some time at talkorigins and read up on it. You’re setting up these “soft tissue” finds with a large burden of proof to overturn all of this other information.

 

[Michael_G]

The timeline is supported by much more than the currently understanding of how fossilization occurs. I recommend you spend some time at talkorigins and read up on it. You’re setting up these “soft tissue” finds with a large burden of proof to overturn all of this other information.

Nope, not quite: The Scripture passages previously sited also show that Man and dinos were around together at the same time.
2. All the clocks, are based on a number of assumptions which cannot be proved without doubt. Any assumptions if they are wrong makes the evolutionist time invalid. Just like assumptions for fossil decay and fossilization, just like all of evolution based on assumptions and speculations to numerous to count, hence the numbers of well respected scientists, well educated are challanging your skule of thought.

 

[zian]

Nope, not quite: The Scripture passages previously sited also show that Man and dinos were around together at the same time.
2. All the clocks, are based on a number of assumptions which cannot be proved without doubt. Any assumptions if they are wrong makes the evolutionist time invalid. Just like assumptions for fossil decay and fossilization, just like all of evolution based on assumptions and speculations to numerous to count, hence the numbers of well respected scientists, well educated are challanging your skule of thought.

Michael, all of science is based on at least some assumptions. See, for example, What is Science?. One of the questions to be answered is whether the assumptions are reasonable or not? Is it reasonable to expect atoms on distant stars and planets to behave with the same chemical and physical properties that they have on earth, where we can observe them directly with our instruments. Is it reasonable to expect that atoms in the past would behave with the same properties as atoms in the present? Is it reasonable that light traveling in a vacuum on earth has the same properties as light traveling in the vacuum of distant space? If you want to make claims against any of the assumptions of science, then you need to bring your evidence and your theory with you. All scientists are willing to have their “skule of thought” challenged, but more than simple assertions are needed.

As for reliability of dating -
talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/how_old_earth.html

 

[Michael_G]

Michael, all of science is based on at least some assumptions. See, for example, What is Science?. One of the questions to be answered is whether the assumptions are reasonable or not? Is it reasonable to expect atoms on distant stars and planets to behave with the same chemical and physical properties that they have on earth, where we can observe them directly with our instruments. Is it reasonable to expect that atoms in the past would behave with the same properties as atoms in the present? Is it reasonable that light traveling in a vacuum on earth has the same properties as light traveling in the vacuum of distant space? If you want to make claims against any of the assumptions of science, then you need to bring your evidence and your theory with you. All scientists are willing to have their “skule of thought” challenged, but more than simple assertions are needed.

The assumptions and speculations within evolution and the clocks are of no comparison to speed of light and chemical properties which are 100% observable and demonstrable here and now.

 

[Michael_G]

. All scientists are willing to have their “skule of thought” challenged, but more than simple assertions are needed.

As for reliability of dating -
talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/how_old_earth.html

Problems galore for radiometric dating all because of numerous assumptions and speculations too numerous to count for both clocks and evolution. No comparison to speed of light, or chemical properties

icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_uthpbdating/

icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_apollo/
DATING OF MOON ROCKS AND SOIL
The supposed age of 4.5 billion years of the earth is actually based on radiometric age determinations of meteorites. Radiometric dating methods are based on a series of assumptions, and thusthe accuracy of the method depends, of course, on the reliability of these assumptions. These assumptions have been questioned, and the vastages thus derived have been challenged. 10-12 Even if such methods were reliable, the catastrophic effects and reworking of the surface of the moon brought about by the bombardment of the moon by planetesimals and meteorites, especially as envisioned by evolutionary scientists, would render the dating of the origin of the moon by these methods impossible. It is often claimed that the age of the earth and of the solar system of about 4.5 billion years was confirmed by ages obtained for the moon. Actually, ages obtained for various moon rocks showed a very large spread, some giving a sample age of 20 billion years. The following table, reproduced from Whitcomb and DeYoung, 13 is based on data compiled by John G. Read, and shows some of the variations for Apollo sample material. Taylor also discusses some of the problems generated by ages obtained Jon lunar soil and rocks. He points out that soils in the maria had model rubidium-strontium ages of about 4.6 billion years, although they were supposedly derived from rocks which, according to radiometric dating methods, were only 3.6-3.8 billion years old; an impossible situation. Some soils gave model ages even greater than 4.6 billion years, the supposed age of the solar system. Taylor rejects these ages out of hand since, he declares, there is so much evidence indicating the formation of the solar system about 4.6 billion years ago. These ages are thus rejected as unacceptable. 14

Once it had been assumed that dating of meteorites had established the age of the solar system at approximately 4.6 billion years, evolutionists have clung tenaciously to that age, and calibrate events in earth history accordingly. Gale, Arden, and Hutchison, however, have discovered serious problems with the data from meteorites and the assumptions on which ages of these meteorites were derived, which had supposedly established an age of 4.5 billion years for the solar system. They declared, "We suspect that the lack of concordance may result in some part from the choice of isotope ratios for primitive lead, rather than from lead gain or uranium loss. It therefore follows that the whole of classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy. 15 This is not to infer that these scientists are declaring that the earth may be young, but certainly the 4.6 billion years religiously assumed by evolutionists for the age of the earth may be in serious doubt according to these scientists.
Furthermore, as described in the books by Whitcomb and Morris 11 and H. M. Morris, 12 there are a great number of physical processes that indicate a young age for the earth and solar system. It can be said that in dating moon rocks, radio chronologists have applied the same assumptions used in methods to date rocks on the earth, which may be totally invalid. Their interpretation of the order of events on the moon and the nature of various components of the surface of the moon, therefore, may be completely erroneous.

 

[Michael_G]

. All scientists are willing to have their “skule of thought” challenged, but more than simple assertions are needed.

As for reliability of dating -
talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/how_old_earth.html

Even Bigger/ major problems for Radiometric Clocks
Problems galore for radiometric dating all because of numerous assumptions and speculations too numerous to count for both clocks and evolution. No comparison to speed of light, or chemical properties

icr.org/rate/

. Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project.
For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, a team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports …e young age of the earth.
This scientific research project is called RATE, which stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth.

RATE Articles

Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified (#386)by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology (#376)by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

New Rate Data Support a Young World (#366)by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution’s Long Ages (#364)
by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.

Radiohalos - Significant And Exciting Research Results (#353)by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.
Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World (#352)
by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Evidence for a Young World (#384)by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
RATE Radio Programs
RATE - What Earthly Reason?
Week of October 1, 2005
RATE - Rocks Evolution, Part 1
Week of October 8, 2005
RATE - Rocks Evolution, Part 2
Week of October 15, 2005
RATE - Diamonds: A Creationist’s Best Friend
Week of October 22, 2005
RATE - Thousands, Not Billions
Week of October 29, 2005

RATE Products
http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&cPath=5_6&products_id=2643
Thousands… Not Billions
Understand the findings of the RATE project. Dr. DeYoung authored this non-technical book in order to equip the layperson to defend scientific six-day creation and refute modern dating techniques.
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume I
The RATE book is a definitive resource on radioactive dating for every scientist’s library, whether evolutionist or creationist. It examines radioisotope theory, exposes its plaguing problems, and offers a better alternative.
» Purchase Information

file:///C:/My%20Documents/CREATION/pdf_dl.gif Free download[2.8MB PDF]
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II
The age of the earth is an important issue in Christianity today. If the 6 day Genesis account is fallacious, then how can the rest of Scripture be relied upon? Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative addresses the issues raised by the first RATE technical book in 2000.

 

[zian]

Problems galore for radiometric dating …

May I recommend to you a page by our own PhilVaz -
bringyou.to/apologetics/p64.htm
Like Phil, I highly recommend to the interested reader that they take a look at Dalrymple’s book “The Age of the Earth”. His Chapter 5 - Moon Rocks: Samples from a Sister Planet, has a 60+ page discussion on the ages of moon rocks. He summarizes on page 256:
Dalrymple:

Despite the intense early bombardment that brecciated and fractured the lunar crust to depths of perhaps 20 km, slightly more than a dozen lunar highlands samples with radiometric ages exceeding 4.2 Ga have been found. …

The timing of basin formation has been determined from the several hundred radiometric ages calculated fro breccias recovered from the thick and extensive blankets of ejecta that cover much of the lunar highlands. The ages indicate that basin formation began about 4.4-4.5 GA (Mare Tranquillitatiis, Oceanus Procellarum) and continued until about 3.8 Ga (maria Orientale and Imbrium).

The filling of the basins by mare lavas was not directly associated with the basin-forming impacts but, in general, occurred several hundred million years later. More than 100 radiometric ages on basalts from six mare sites show that mare volcanism at these sites occurred between about 3.9 and 3.1 Ga. Some radiometric data, crater density studies and stratigraphic relations indicate, however, that mare volcanism began more than 4.1 Ga and may have continued, at a reduced rate, to as recently as 1 Ga.

The radiometric data, including both rock and model ages, show clearly that the Moon is at least 4.5 Ga in age. Between 4.5 and 3.8 Ga, the Moon was subjected to intense bombardment from material in its orbital path. This was followed by extensive infilling of the basins by mare volcanism from 3.9 to 3.1 Ga. From 3.1 to perhaps 1 Ga, lunar volcanism continually diminished as the Moon cooled, and for the past 1 Ga the Moon has been inactive, its features modified only by the impacts of meteorites, meteoric dust, and particles of the solar wind, and by gravity.

where Ga = billion years ago

I would also like to point the interested reader to
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html

 

[Verita]

All:

1. Where do the dinasours fit into the creation scheme? (remember these are 7th graders!)

The way my husband explained it to me, the description of Creation in Genesis is actually very close (in an expremely simplified way) to the way it actually would have happened with the Big Bang and evolution and everything. The order in which Genesis describes the Creation is the order in which it actually would have happened, albeit over billions of years not days. Dinosaurs would have been a part of that billions of years of evolution.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The way my husband explained it to me, the description of Creation in Genesis is actually very close (in an expremely simplified way) to the way it actually would have happened with the Big Bang and evolution and everything. The order in which Genesis describes the Creation is the order in which it actually would have happened, albeit over billions of years not days. Dinosaurs would have been a part of that billions of years of evolution.

Remember the earth’s orbit would be different if there was a big bang, so a single revolution could have been very slow or very quick

 

[ribozyme]

The way my husband explained it to me, the description of Creation in Genesis is actually very close (in an expremely simplified way) to the way it actually would have happened with the Big Bang and evolution and everything. The order in which Genesis describes the Creation is the order in which it actually would have happened, albeit over billions of years not days. Dinosaurs would have been a part of that billions of years of evolution.

No it doesn’t! Plants created before the sun?

 

[jmcrae]

No it doesn’t! Plants created before the sun?

There was light, though. Plants need light, but it doesn’t have to be sunlight.

Day 1: Light and dark.

Day 2: The sky, the waters above (ice crystals in outer space?) and the waters below (ocean).

Day 3: Dry land, and plant life.

Day 4: Stars (constellations), sun, and moon.

Day 5: Water creatures and birds. (Some people believe that birds and sea creatures evolved from dinosaurs.)

Day 6: Cattle, all that walks and crawls on the land, and lastly, human beings.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No it doesn’t! Plants created before the sun?

Yep and a chicken before the egg :yup: and who knows maybe a dinosaur was there too