Please quote for me an offical document that shows the Church taken one position or the other on the position of how long the origional 7 days were?I think that maybe on the 6th day when God created beast he created the dinosaurs. Now remember the days were not 24 hour days (The church has taught us that). Though maybe thousands of years later (still the 6th day) God distroyed Dinos and created Humans ^^
And what authority determines where the metaphysical ends and science begins (or vice -versa)?
Do you have any authoratative quotes or documents to prove this claim?
I think heās referring to the Ica stones found which depict dinosaurs and humans together. This is also possible. I donāt think that the earth is 6000 years old (although anything is possible with God) but I do knonw that the methods used to ādateā fossils are inaccurate to say the least. Radio isotope dating doesnāt work. And the use of this form of dating presupposes the theory of evolution. I think the clergy would do well to stay away from commenting on evolutionas it is a religion invented by aetheists and has no substantial evidence to support it.
Check this website:
& All legends came from somewhere. Drawing the dragons depicted in movies as grounds for your argument makes no sense because the truth is that radio isotope dating is not accurate over a certain time limit. After that dating fossils is pure guess work. There is evidence in many cultures worldwide of both a great flood and dragon/dinosaur-like creatures existing alongside man.So is the word āAssyriologyā - that is not exactly evidence that Assyria was a power, let alone a major power, in the 19th century AD, when the word was coined. āHittitologyā is even more recent - itās a designation for the study of a kingdom that collapsed in about 1200 BC
Must Sumer be recent - instead of defunct for over 4,000 years - because the word for the study of it is recent ?
This is bizarre reasoning:
s8int.com/dinolit2.html
my emphasis]
By that logic, the dragons & beasts drawn for the film of āThe Lord of the Ringsā must have been āseen by the artistā, or by Peter Jackson, or even by Tolkien himself. Saurians in 1950s Oxford ? Somehow, I doubt it. Saurians, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder - those animals need not be saurians (or even Sauronās, for that matter); they can perfectly well be non-existent & geometrically pleasing animals.
YEC logic would have us treating the fantastic fauna of TLOTR as having really existed - it dissolves the difference between imagination & fact. If an historian claimed that the White House had been whitened to hide damage caused by a fire-breathing dragon, he would not have his job for long. Only in theology is the unfounded & anti-logical nonsense of YECism found tolerable
Does it never occur to YECers that if that cylinder-seal & that motif were even remotely likely to be valid evidence of saurians in Mesopotamia, someone would have said so by now ? The reason that experts in the subject such as Moortgat, Collon, Frankfort, & many others have not said so, is because they know a great deal more about the area & its art than the people who brandish this picture as evidence of saurian life in Mesopotamia in 3300 BC. And that knowledge protects them against drawing daft conclusions about what the motifs on the cylinder-seals mean.
But no - as usual, people who couldnāt even spell āMesopotamiaā if their lives depended on it turn out to know more about Mesopotamian art than those whoāve spent their lives on the subject.
The āscienceā used to date fossils over 10,000 years old is actually guesswork. They do not read the carbon isotope as this method is only effective for up to around 10,000 years. Rather they need to know what strata layer the fossil was found in then they can pronounce on a date for the fossil.
That is also false. You need to read a bit about radiometric dating. C14 is not the only dating method used.The āscienceā used to date fossils over 10,000 years old is actually guesswork. They do not read the carbon isotope as this method is only effective for up to around 10,000 years. Rather they need to know what strata layer the fossil was found in then they can pronounce on a date for the fossil.
Now how do they know the age of the strata layers you might ask? Well they date the strata layers by the fossils they find within these strata layers. Do I hear circular reasoning? The reason this method is accepted has to do with the fact that this method presupposes the theory of evolution - i.e. organisms making organisms after some other kind (not their own kind).
Sounds like a nutty religious belief system to me
You are correct in saying that it is false to say that dating an object using Radio Isotope does not work. That form of dating can work and be valuable but it is a tool and like all tools it is insufficient by itās self.
No argument is necessary since there is no foolproof way of proving the date of fossils STILL. That is true not false. I read the articles you prescribed and many others and still to use these methods there are presumptions made such as how many radioactive atoms the fossil had in the first place.
Dinosaurs have many denominations. But to say they cannot be saved is harshā¦ they are just mislead. Many of them even believed in the Rapture.Yes there is. They canāt be Saved
I think the trouble is that most people hold scientists in high esteem and believe that scientists know alot more than they do. Scientists actually just make guesses about more things than non-scientists actually do so they are perceived as knowledgeable. I studied chemistry, physics and biology in high school and studied physics in university as well. What I can say about science is that theories change radically in a short time and what was previously a fact can become science fiction in short time. Scientific dating can only be done accurately if what object being dated is observed in a closed system like a lab. In the lab it is possible to speed up radioactive decay so that an object that is a few days old can read hundreds of years old.Furthermore there is no evidence for evolution to date. But some scientists presuppose evolution is true then work backward from there to show evidence of it.
Finishing up 5 years of Mechanical Engineering, and all i do is make very educated GUESSES and simplifying assumptions.
