Dinosaurs and the Flood

[buffalo]

me following the science wherever it leads.

Antony Flew followed the evidence too.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m thinking that the first humans were made diectly by God, but not the first hominids, at least as it pertains to ensoulment.

Made materially, or “infused a soul directly in an existing hominin”?

 

[JimG]

Either way. (If God infused a human soul into an existing hominid, that means that the prior hominids were not actually human beings by our standards, not having an immaterial, rational soul.)

 

[JimG]

40,000 years ago, the Australian aborigines (human beings) roamed around Australia. Did they have or did they not have souls until 5-10000 years ago as another poster says the Bible requires?

I wasn’t there, so I don’t know. If they had rational souls, they would have had intellect and free will, the power of abstraction, discerning universals, and probably language.

 

[Gorgias]

Either way. (If God infused a human soul into an existing hominid, that means that the prior hominids were not actually human beings by our standards, not having an immaterial, rational soul.)

Precisely! And, all that science can talk about is the physical bodies… and not the ‘human person’, properly considered.

 

[njlisa]

@buffalo C14

C14 dating does not tell us that.

You’re right. I should have used the more precise term “radiocarbon.” Thanks for pointing out that error.

The Church accepts the concept of evolution. Pope Francis stated: “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

Fossil bone incorporates new radiocarbon by means of recrystallization and, in some cases, bacterial activity and uranium decay.

Radiocarbon in Dinosaur Fossils: Compatibility with an Age of Millions of Years | The American Biology Teacher | University of California Press

God bless you!

---

Hi, @Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman: Thanks for your comment!

This is actually still incorrect. Carbon dating cannot be used on fossils that old. Instead, other isotopes are used like potassium-40.

The article link above uses the term “radiocarbon.” Here’s an excerpt:

How New Radiocarbon Is Added to Old Bone​

The amount of 14C in bone drops as the bone loses organic material during the microbial decay phase and the collagen gelatinization phase. However, the amount of 14C in bone then rises again as bone mineral gains new 14C. There are five ways that old bone mineral gains new radiocarbon: recrystallization, permineralization, encrustation, bacterial contamination, and uranium decay.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

You’re right. I should have used the more precise term “radiocarbon.” Thanks for pointing out that error.

This is actually still incorrect. Carbon dating cannot be used on fossils that old. Instead, other isotopes are used like potassium-40.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

If you read the article, it’s a response to the presence of radiocarbon being used as evidence against old earth. Radiocarbon dating is not accurate for dating things as old as Dinosaur bones.

 

[Buzzard3]

Don’t know. I’m not sure what “in his own image” means.

Am I talking to another atheist?

I thought we were talking about the first humans - you know - same species as us. After all, that’s what science is addressing, and it’s assessment is what you are ridiculing (without any evidence).

The Genesis account suggests Adam and Eve immediately had language, but I’m not asserting that Adam immediately had writing. I’m asserting that when God made man in his own image, it would not take him 300,000 years to invent boats, writing and the wheel.

This is a Catholic forum. Catholics believe God created human in his image, as Genesis says. I would like to know when Catholic Darwinists believe God created man in his own image.

If 5-6000 years is about right, what does this tell you about the timing of the earliest of our species ? Please explain the reasoning.

The fact that writing, the wheel and metallurgy were all invented about 5,000 years ago, and the first boats about 10,000 years ago, tells that according to science, Homo sapiens were complete morons for 300,000+ years and then suddenly became very brainy 10,000 years ago, which strikes me as rather absurd.
The only way that scenario could possibly make sense is if H. sapiens existed for 300,000+ years and then God “ensouled” Adam (created man in his own image) about 15,000 years ago.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

The fact that writing, the wheel and metallurgy were all invented about 5,000 years ago, and the first boats about 10,000 years ago, tells that according to science, Homo sapiens were complete morons for 300,000+ years and then suddenly became very brainy 10,000 years ago, which strikes me as rather absurd.

For the last time, metallurgy, the wheel, and writing did not and could not exist until societies were formed, which could not exist until agriculture, which could not exist for most of human history because the environment simply didn’t allow it.

 

[Buzzard3]

No, it strongly suggests that proto-humans were far too busy trying to gather food while looking out for dangerous predators who were intent on eating them, to have time to invent new tools. It’s kinda hard to incapacitate a sabertooth tiger with a wheel.

Devastating logic, my friend. I mean, of what use would advanced tools and a wheel would be to anyone … or writing, or a boat, or metallurgy …? Why invent a spear or bow-and-arrow when you can throw a rock? Why invent a metal sword when you’ve got a stick?

According to Darwinist folklore, it took Homo sapiens 300, 000 years to invent something as basic as a canoe or a simple raft - so funny!

You’re presuming that the first hominin was make directly by God. That’s quite a presumption!

??? I have no idea how God brought the first hominin came into existence … but I don’t expect science will be able to tell me.

My belief is that God created man in his own image not long before boats, writing, the wheel and metallurgy were invented … so no longer than 15, 000 years ago (assuming the accepted date of the first known boats - 10,000 ya - is correct).

What nonsense. ID if it happened over billions of years would be an integral part of evolution. It includes common ancestory and bacteria to man and everything else that you reject. It’s like you’re a flat earther saying that if the earth is flat or round it was still designed by God and then aligning yourself with Buzz and claiming that you’re both arguing the same thing.

The fossil record doesn’t support a connected “tree” of common descent - the ID folks at Discovery Institute contend that Homo sapiens, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record … they also argue that the Cambrian explosion cannot be reconciled with the Darwinian tale of common descent.

For a balanced perspective of the fossil record, I suggest you read the articles published by a Discovery Institute website, evolutionnews org. These articles often cite the work of Stephen Meyer.

I’m not claiming that God could not have used pre-humans as building blocks. But humans have souls, which have to be made directly by God, because souls don’t evolve and don’t arise from evolution.

In effect, Jesus created a man from inanimate matter in an instant when he raised Lazarus from the dead. When we are resurrected, God will provide our souls with a physical body in an instant - we will not have to wait millions-billions of years for a bacteria to evolve into a human body. So there is no reason to believe God did not create Adam from inanimate matter in an instant, as per Genesis 2:7.

But having said that, the “ensoulment” of a pre-existing Homo sapien is another possible explanation for Adam.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Why invent a spear or bow-and-arrow when you can throw a rock?

Both spears and bows were in the employ of man for a very long time, much longer than societies existed.

Why invent a metal sword when you’ve got a stick?

How exactly were they supposed to get the idea to make them?

invent something as basic as a canoe or a simple raft

Basic to us, not to those who had never seen it before.

For a balanced perspective of the fossil record, I suggest you read the articles published by a Discovery Institute website, evolutionnews org. These articles often cite the work of Stephen Meyer.

They’re pseudoscientific hacks. I will not sugarcoat my words about them.

 

[Buzzard3]

If God directly made the first humans what was the purpose of “pre-humans”?

Were they really “pre-humans”, or it that description simply an illusion created by “science”? A scientific (materialistic, God-less) explanation for the existence of Homo sapiens requires that they evolved from “pre-humans”, but the fossil record is not as accommodating as Darwinist folklore would have us believe:

“the fossil evidence supports neither an unambiguous phylogenetic tree of fossil humans nor a smooth directional evolutionary trajectory from ape-like to human-like forms. Furthermore, the fossils occur at the wrong place and at the wrong time. Therefore, we see three core predictions of neo-Darwinian theory neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory again refuted by empirical data … If a theory and its proponents stubbornly refuse falsification by an ever increasing body of substantial conflicting evidence, the theory degenerates into a textbook example of dogmatic pseudo-science. The neo-Darwinian theory of macroevolution has failed on all fronts, from mathematical plausibility and explanatory power, to empirical support.”
from evolutionnews org, “New Fossil Evidence Thwarts Core Darwinian Predictions” by Gunter Bechly, April 2019 (the author, Gunter Bechly, is a world-renowned paleontologist who has discovered more than 160 new species and has 10 biological groups named in his honour).

And it should be remembered that God is not bound by the rules of science - he didn’t need “pre-humans” to bring us into existence. Jesus created a man instantly from inanimate matter when he raised Lazarus from the dead, so there is no reason to doubt that God did not create Adam in an instant from “dust”, as per Genesis 2:7. After we die and are resurrected into physical bodies, we will not have to wait billions of years from our bodies to evolve from a bug - our glorified physical bodies will be created in an instant.

The laws of the Universe were tailored to give rise to us, and dinosaurs were a consequence of that.

How does that explain why God brought dinosaurs into existence and then wiped them out?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

How does that explain why God brought dinosaurs into existence and then wiped them out?

Mammals as they exist needed to evolve from rodent-like animals to have many of the characteristics that make us so adaptable to different environments.

 

[Freddy]

A scientific (materialistic, God-less) explanation…

Says more about you, Buzz, than we’d ever need to know.

 

[Buzzard3]

You have one of the most extreme cases of confirmation bias I have ever seen. You have decided what you will believe and will ignore ALL evidence to the contrary.

Wrongo. My views have changed considerably over the years, due to scientific evidence pointed out to me by various folks, some of them were atheists.

Btw, are you an atheist? Just want to know where you’re coming from.

 

[Buzzard3]

Says more about you, Buzz, than we’d ever need to know.

I knew someone would misinterpret that comment.

I don’t expect science to include theism - science is materialistic by definition - nothing wrong with that.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Says more about you, Buzz, than we’d ever need to know.

I knew someone would misinterpret that comment.

I don’t expect science to include theism - science is materialistic by definition - nothing wrong with that.

Science doesn’t include God. But you do your very best to suggest that it excludes Him. It’s your problem. Deal with it as you must.

 

[Rau]

I’m asserting that when God made man in his own image,

Are u able to explain what this actually means?

according to science, Homo sapiens were complete morons for 300,000+ years

Development of our species since language and writing were achieved is far more readily assessed and tracked. Visibility of what changed in each millennium prior to that is far harder. But if we accept that Australian aborigines (as an example) occupies Australia for 40,000+ years, then either they were then the same species as us, or they were not. As to questions of ensoulment, I’ve no idea, and science makes no claim.

The only way that scenario could possibly make sense is if H. sapiens existed for 300,000+ years and then God “ensouled” Adam (created man in his own image) about 15,000 years ago.

Maybe so. Science makes no contrary assertion.

 

[Rau]

the “ensoulment” of a pre-existing Homo sapien is another possible explanation for Adam.

That theory would not oppose science. So why have you spent Post after post ridiculing (without evidence) the scientific assessment that our species has walked the earth for many tens of thousands of years? You’ve just conceded that could be the case.