Dinosaurs and the Flood

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJosephBoucher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
And how was it different than what I posted.
Click to expand...
Were you not trying to use it as evidence to support your literal reading of Genesis?

If that’s not what you meant, why would you bother to mention it?
 
billsherman said:
Were you not trying to use it as evidence to support your literal reading of Genesis?
Click to expand...
Even if this clay tablet theory is true, it proves absolutely nothing. Literalist interpretations of Genesis still have to somehow explain away evidence against it built off of tried and true mathematics and science.
 
DanielJosephBoucher said:
Does anyone else think that the Flood (with Noah) may have wiped out all the dinosaurs? The Bible indicates that the Creation was some 5 thousand something years ago, or, less than 6 thousand (probably found by adding up the ages of generations of men in the Bible, plus using other Biblical references to time). That means that all the scientific theories of dinosaurs existing millions and billions of years ago are all wrong. Because of this I wonder when the dinosaurs must have lived until. But if the Flood is what made them all extinct, then that means that God didn’t have Noah, or Noe in some versions, save them on the ark. What did really happen?
Click to expand...
Reading your thread , your questions are not being addressed, the thread has been hijacked by the pro vs anti creation argument
 
billsherman said:
Were you not trying to use it as evidence to support your literal reading of Genesis?

If that’s not what you meant, why would you bother to mention it?
Click to expand...
I was answering post 59. Then you jumped in.

It is apparent that you were not aware of this.
 
Last edited:
The very question posed in the thread is based on the incorrect assumption that dinosaurs were around at the time of the flood and abandoned by Noah. The first sentence says this. I and others are addressing this.
 
The old earth is so well supported that it can easily be assumed over the young earth. A preponderance of evidence exists that Earth is 4.5 billion years old. None exists in science that Earth is 6000.
 
Last edited:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
The old earth is so well supported that it can easily be assumed over the young earth. A preponderance of evidence exists that Earth is 4.5 billion years old. None exists in science that Earth is 6000.
Click to expand...
So we come full circle back to the question no one wanted to answer directly. You obfuscated…

If we find an object in pot-argon rocks estimated to be1 billion years, that C14 dates to 10,000 years ago, which do we pick?
 
I’ll answer when I know which is more reliable. Would you mind letting me know, please? So far, despite extensive searching, I’ve seen no evidence that one is better than the other.

Typical procedure, like I stated before, is to look for evidence that one is wrong. I have no opportunity to do so.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
I was answering post 59. Then you jumped in.

It is apparent that you were not aware of this.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you could have been answering with your post.

Your literal reading of Genesis is broadly rejected by Christian and Jewish scholars of nearly all traditions (and every Catholic scholar I know).

Let’s just leave it at that.
 
It seems that way to you. It’s still relevant conversation in my opinion because it relates to what I brought up. I’m not worried if anyone goes off in an off tangent discussion. No problem here. Why would I want to control the discussion? Live and let live.
 
billsherman said:
I have no idea what you could have been answering with your post.
Click to expand...
This was what was posted in 59 - “They were telling stories in order to convey theological “truths” as they understood them. Genesis was originally written between approx. 950 and 700 B.C. during the period of the monarchy in ancient Israel. And it had at least three original authors.”

I was pointing out Moses had compiled it from sources he had is his possession namely clay tablets passed on through the generations.
 
Not true… I did not assume dinosaurs were still around, but you assume they were not. I don’t know if they were still around or not, you misunderstand me. They could have been still around at the time of the Great Flood, they could have not. How do we know for sure?
 
There is no possible way for dinosaurs as we know them to have existed at such a recent time. The air does not contain enough oxygen to support such massive fauna. Even if they could exist today, they’d outcompete mammals and we’d all be dead.

All evidence points to their existence being between 220 and 65 million years ago.
 
Last edited:
DanielJosephBoucher said:
This isn’t about debating. No controversy is trying to be brought out. I’m just opening a discussion. People responded and had lots more to discuss on this matter than I expected, but I’m not opposed to that. If you’ve got something to say, or are interested in the discussion, you are welcome.
Click to expand...
. . . .

There is a view, as noted by the good Captain, that these views should be nipped in the bud to prevent Catholics as being viewed as scientifically illiterate. . . .

The fact that they say that denying that which they believe is somehow denying God is as farcical as their belief of a 6,000 year old planet and their consequent denial of evolution. As indicated by all the Catholics posting on this thread who are trying to point out the fallacy of holding to these views. Are they denying God in so doing? Obviously not.

You’re a newcomer to this forum so you might not be aware of the fact that threads on evolution were banned. This was changed about…3 years back? Why it was banned in the first place was quite possibly the view that fundamentalist views weren’t a good look for the forum. Echoing Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman’s views. And why the ban was lifted I don’t know.

But what I do know is that the same old faces keep popping up every time a thread like this starts up. With the same old arguments, the same old links, the same old quotes. And people who haven’t been involved in the interminable threads during the last couple of years keep feeding them oxygen thinking that this is all new information and worthy of debate. . . .
 
Last edited:
He is atheist, yes. What does that have to do with what he said?
 
Last edited:
billsherman said:
Your literal reading of Genesis is broadly rejected by Christian and Jewish scholars of nearly all traditions (and every Catholic scholar I know).
Click to expand...
I am following the teachings in the Catechism and the long held understanding since the beginning of the Church.

I will go with Jesus.
  • For in those days before the Flood people were eating, drinking, taking wives, taking husbands, right up to the day Noah went into the ark, ( [Matthew 24, 38] )
  • and they suspected nothing till the Flood came and swept them all away. This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes. ( [Matthew 24, 39] )
People were eating and drinking, marrying wives and husbands, right up to the day Noah went into the ark, and the Flood came and destroyed them all. ( [Luke 17, 27] )

He did not spare the world in ancient times: he saved only Noah, the preacher of uprightness, along with seven others, when he sent the Flood over a world of sinners. ( [2 Peter 2, 5] )
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top