Dinosaurs and the Flood

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJosephBoucher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How, then, did dinosaurs coexist with mammals, which would have been out-competed at every turn by the dinosaurs?

In addition, how did the dinosaurs exist in an atmosphere that did not have a large amount of oxygen compared to today?
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
Christians, and particularly Catholics, have never believed the Bible holds the truth about science.
Click to expand...
Here are three:

In the beginning - time
God created the
heavens (space) and the earth (matter)

God revealed this and science just confirmed in the last few hundred years.

Modern science exists because of Catholic understanding or an ordered universe that could be investigates. Natural philosophy (science) included God until they decided to exclude Him.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Is your issue clay tablets?
Click to expand...
My issue is that you have no evidence for this extraordinary claim except for an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim website that pushes a number of absurd claims.

You could start by denouncing the website, then perhaps you could produce some ACTUAL evidence for the claim.
 
billsherman said:
My issue is that you have no evidence for this extraordinary claim except for an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim website that pushes a number of absurd claims.
Click to expand...
That is not the source. They have it posted on a Jewish site. If you would read the article you would see for yourself.
 
Right, and part of faith is a relationship with nature. Science is the study of nature. Nature is described in the Bible, so I wouldn’t exclude it from discussions about science.
 
The Bible’s natural claims may be included, but science, by its nature, must exclude its supernatural claims. Things like “God made everything” are beyond the reach of the scientific method and are, therefore, unfit for scientific testing.
 
Last edited:
I always look upon the forum as a place to have an interesting discussion. It’s like walking into my local bar and joining in a discussion on whatever topic has taken the interest of the locals.

For the life of me I can’t see how a discussion on dinosaurs has been going on for so long. Most people would think ‘Gee, there’s ol’ Bill going on yet again about the earth being 6,000 years old’ and politely nod to him and walk on by to find someone interesting to talk to. He might buttonhole you as you pass by but apart from a few polite comments, why on earth would you encourage him?
 
buffalo said:
One time historical events that are not observable, repeatable and predictable (empirical) are unfit too.
Click to expand...
To what are you referring?
Freddy said:
For the life of me I can’t see how a discussion on dinosaurs has been going on for so long.
Click to expand...
There’s a prevalent belief in modern society that the Church is anti-science. We may ignore YEC, but others won’t. Allowing ignorance of easily demonstrable scientific fact hurts the Church.

Plus, I don’t like scientific illiteracy.
 
Last edited:
DanielJosephBoucher said:
Wow, that is so insulting.
Click to expand...
If someone holds ridiculous views then we should be polite in talking to the person. But we don’t need to give the views any validity by entering into a debate with them.

I’ve been guilty of talking to ol’ Bill at length myself. But only because there was no other interesting discussion elsewhere in the bar and it was more for my own amusement. At ol’ Bill’s expense I’m afraid. So there is a certain amount of guilt associated with that. There is a certain satisfaction not just in being right but proving the other guy is wrong.

If I were Catholic I would likely confess that sin. I’m not, so this is as close to a confession of my hubris as you’re likely to get.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
buffalo said:
The poster was making claims no Jewish people would accept the tablet theory.
Click to expand...
Ah . . . the Wiseman Theory. That’s a bit different than what you posited. The Wiseman Theory is just an updated version of the standard view before the advent of textual criticism. It wasn’t widely accepted when he came up with it, and I don’t know any scholars who follow it today. Other than Christian fundamentalists I don’t know why anyone would follow it, it just doesn’t come close to fitting the evidence we have.

It differs from you in one very serious way, though - it does NOT at any point (at least as I am aware) require Genesis to be taken literally. The only problem it - supposedly - solves for literalists is that of authorship.

Your main problem remains - taking Genesis literally is a very recent phenomenon. A position for which there is little - or perhaps even no - evidence.
 
billsherman said:
It wasn’t widely accepted when he came up with it, and I don’t know any scholars who follow it today.
Click to expand...
We only recently found writing goes back further than they have thought.

And how was it different than what I posted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top