Dinosaurs and the Flood

[umamibella]

I must web wombat this

 

[stoplooklisten]

They were great philosophers and theologians but they didn’t have the science we have now.

The Early Church Fathers were unanimous in their affirmation of Adam and Eve and the saving of eight on Noah’s ark. Jesus also affirmed this history. We don’t just set that aside. Let’s re-check the science. Science include genetics. The science of genetics shows us that genetic mutations cause genetic disease. Scientists are human and make assumptions. Scientists haven’t shown us that random mutation and natural selection produce higher, evolved organisms. Evolution has no mechanism to create DNA and the genome for even a single cell organism. Scientists want us to trust them and take their word for it. Let’s continue to trust Almighty God and believe God’s Word.

 

[Freddy]

Double post - deleted.

 

[Hume]

Does anyone else think that the Flood (with Noah) may have wiped out all the dinosaurs?

No. The dinos were probably killed off by the asteroid that created the Chicxulub crater.

(Great place to vacation, by the way).

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).

4004 BC is a pretty common date for hyper-literal young-earth creationists.

That means that all the scientific theories of dinosaurs existing millions and billions of years ago are all wrong.

Well, it could also mean that Genesis speaks of creation figuratively and you shouldn’t use it as a scientific text. In the same way, I won’t use a comic book as a math text even though it might have a few numbers in it.

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?

Likely story? Sometime after the rise of civilization but before we, as a species, were really good at writing stuff down, there was probably a massive flood in the Euphrates river valley. Most everyone nearby was killed except for a guy and his family who floated on the wooden roof of his destroyed home. He probably managed to tie some livestock to the makeshift raft, keeping a few animals from drowning.

As the story was retold, the flood got bigger. The raft got bigger. The number of animals saved got bigger. The merit of the guy also got bigger. “He didn’t live because he was lucky. He lived because he was chosen by God.” So on…

 

[Freddy]

Do we have a problem with the forum? Double posts, missing posts and errors in editing…

 

[Hume]

Do we have a problem with the forum? Double posts, missing posts and errors in editing…

None I’ve noticed. But I was having similar problems just before my last “time out”.

Works fine now. Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[umamibella]

indeed, the state of rolling lockdown

 

[nicholasG]

The science of genetics shows us that genetic mutations cause genetic disease.

Not all mutations cause disease. That fact is that most mutations do not cause disease. Evolution is the process by which populations of organisms change over generations. Genetic variations underlie these changes. Genetic variations can arise from gene mutations or from genetic recombination (a normal process in which genetic material is rearranged as a cell is getting ready to divide). These variations often alter gene activity or protein function, which can introduce different traits in an organism. If a trait is advantageous and helps the individual survive and reproduce, the genetic variation is more likely to be passed to the next generation (a process known as natural selection). Over time, as generations of individuals with the trait continue to reproduce, the advantageous trait becomes increasingly common in a population, making the population different than an ancestral one. Sometimes the population becomes so different that it is considered a new species.
This is called evolution.

The Early Church Fathers were unanimous in their affirmation of Adam and Eve and the saving of eight on Noah’s ark. Jesus also affirmed this history. We don’t just set that aside.

The problem of evolution only arises when people read the Bible literally. The Bible was never meant to be read that way.

One consequence of reading the Bible literally would be:
Leviticus 20:13
“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads”

I don’t think we would advocate killing homosexuals just because it says so in the Bible would we?

 

[PickyPicky]

One consequence of reading the Bible literally would be:
Leviticus 20:13
“ If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads ”

I don’t think we would advocate killing homosexuals just because it says so in the Bible would we?

I think the literal reading would be not only that homosexuals should be killed, but also that they should be drained of their blood, which should then be poured on their heads. Very unpleasant.

 

[buffalo]

The problem of evolution only arises when people read the Bible literally. The Bible was never meant to be read that way.

Actually no. It comes as a result of studying the recent science. The top evo’s are conceding NS and RM cannot account for the vast complexity. Every living cell has ribosomes, 10 million of them, and they are conserved across life. They are super complex.

The modern synthesis has failed and they are scrambling to come up with something.

 

[Anrakyr]

This is why I am more worried about people that seek to limit the account of the flood to only a single region or to make it a mythological tale completely.

As stated the flood if global should have destroyed ancient China and Egypt. Both of which magically repopulate and continue on like nothing happened.

 

[nicholasG]

Actually no. It comes as a result of studying the recent science. The top evo’s are conceding NS and RM cannot account for the vast complexity. Every living cell has ribosomes, 10 million of them, and they are conserved across life. They are super complex.

The modern synthesis has failed and they are scrambling to come up with something.

Ribosome originated in an RNA only later evolved. What does that have to do with negating evolution? Nothing.

 

[buffalo]

As stated the flood if global should have destroyed ancient China and Egypt. Both of which magically repopulate and continue on like nothing happened.

China and Egypt both recount the flood story. China has the flood story embedded in its language characters.

 

[Anrakyr]

Cool, don’t talk to me.

 

[buffalo]

Ribosome originated in an RNA only later evolved. What does that have to do with negating evolution? Nothing.

Ribosomes are more complex than just about anything else. Yeah, the most complex thing evolved before the rest of the less complex things.

Show me the empirical steps evolution did in creating the ribosome.

 

[NSmith]

This is only a problem according to the timeline that you’ve constructed, which is likely in error because it presents this problem.

 

[nicholasG]

Show me the empirical steps evolution did in creating the ribosome.

Easy, it’s on the web, do the research. Nothing unusual as you seem to imply. All part of evolution.

How do you make a ribosome? Some chromosomes have sections of DNA that encode ribosomal RNA, a type of structural RNA that combines with proteins to make the ribosome. In the nucleolus, new ribosomal RNA combines with proteins to form the subunits of the ribosome. The newly made subunits are transported out through the nuclear pores to the cytoplasm, where they can do their job.
Some cell types have more than one nucleolus inside the nucleus. For instance, some mouse cells have up to 6 nucleoli. Prokaryotes, which do not have a nucleus, don’t have nucleoli and build their ribosomes in the cytosol.

 

[NSmith]

In general my objection to the evolutionary hypothesis as it pertains to the origin of complex organisms is that it violates the second law of thermodynamics, that is to say that more complex things are spontaneously generating from less complex things, which is a decrease in the entropy of the system. This should not be possible unless it can be demonstrated that it is not a closed system, which implies some outside (name removed by moderator)ut into the system. But even in that case, there is always a corresponding increase in the entropy of another system related to the one that has decreased, because the entropy of the universe itself, which is a closed system, can never decrease.
Evolutionists, and by this I mean people that attempt to say all life originated in single-celled organisms, cannot explain this, and I think that this is what Buffalo has been attempting to say by pointing out specific examples, even though the examples themselves may be possible.

 

[Anrakyr]

This is only a problem according to the timeline that you’ve constructed, which is likely in error because it presents this problem.

The timeline I constructed? The Bible is quite clear you have a 2000-3000 Years BC as too when the flood could have taken place. 3000 BC being the absolute earliest.

Egyptian and Chinese history carries on right through that time frame.

So if we are throwing out the time frame in the Bible then why are we even having this discussion?

 

[NSmith]

If you read my post then you should understand that it is not required to view the Old Testament in the manner you describe, and that more intelligent men than either of us have quibbled over the age of the Earth for thousands of years.
The time frame in the Bible could very well be thousands of years more ancient than what you propose and it would not be outlandish in the Jewish tradition.