T-Rex bone discovery supports a young earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter jessejames
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Karl, I have a headache from reading this thread!!! Do you have an aspirin? 😃

Any scientists around to explain what caused my headache? Is it natural to get a headache when we discuss science and theology together? :confused: Is that normal? Is it healthy? It is a scientific question/s pertaining to our discussion/s. Isn’t it? :confused:
 
👍 Groundhog Phil refers only to one of my favorite movies, sorry. But im glad you find it amusing, Groundhog Phil
 
I’m trying to figure out why I’ve got this headache. I just read in “Choosing Your Forum Wisely” found on this forum
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=6487
that it states, “Do you find yourself asking how to respond to issues or how to better understand issues? Do you find yourself asking about passages from articles or books or how to present the faith effectively? Are you talking about conversion or the conversion process? Use the Apologetics forum.” When you click “Apologetics” (nothing shows up except ‘The Page CANNOT BE DISPLAYED’ url forumdisplay.php/?f=20)). Isn’t apologetics the branch of theology? Science isn’t theology. I’m really confused. Science isn’t theology. How can there be a topic of discussion such as ‘T-Rex bone discovery supports a young earth’? I thought from all that I’ve read the Vatican officals doesn’t want to have Catholics mixing science with theology. Why can’t we have a Science forum? When I want to ask questions or learn about science I could go there and when I want to know about theology I could come to the Apologetics forum. As a new member can’t I do that then I wouldn’t get a headache when trying to learn about science. Thank you.
 
40.png
three-sixteen:
petra the death that GOD promised to Adam–“you will surely die the death”–DID happen. Granted, not instantly except in the spiritual sense, but eventually—after 900 years in Adams case. One can see that Adam and Eve were meant to live FOREVER with GOD and there would have been no pain, no death, no toil. These were curses of sin. The TREE OF LIFE was no longer accessible to them. This proves the opposite of what you are trying to make out it of. They were no longer to live eternally, and were cursed to die someday—thus they were kicked out of the Garden Paradise where the Tree of Life, the Tree of Immortality existed.

Thus this “death” is BOTH spiritual and physical. One can see by the long life spans of the original fathers (often 900 plus years) that man was created to live forever. Man’s PHYSICAL life-span was shortened more each time man turned away from God and sinned. After the wicked days of the flood, God shortened the life span again to 120 years. READ IT! For the fist 1600 years or so of man’s existence—the time up to the FLOOD there was no killing or death of animals. Men were vegetarians. READ IT! Only AFTER the FLOOD was man commanded to eat animals, because for the first time there was enmity between man and animals, who had lived peacefully up to that time. Thus man’s sin led up to not only his personal death (spiritually and physically) but also the physical death of animals after the FLOOD.
Click to expand...
The fact that Adam and Eve eventually died physically some time later does not prove that physical death did not exist prior to the Fall. After all, IF they were mortal in their innocent state, they would also be mortal in their fallen state. The outcome of eventual physical death does not prove anything about their original state of mortality.

It is true that God intended immortality for them, but they were not immortal by default or simply by virtue of the fact that they had not yet sinned. If they were immortal before the Fall, why would it be necessary for God to place the Tree of Life in the Garden? What purpose would it have? Given the fact that God did not want them to eat of the Tree of Life after they fell, God’s purpose for the Tree of Life had to have pertained to their innocent state.

Now, in giving this a little more thought, it may be true that Adam and Eve had actually eaten of the Tree of Life prior to the Fall, and had BECOME immortal. But this immortality would have been a direct result of fruit from the TOL–not from their innocent state. (Again, if they were immortal by default, there would be no need for the tree) Upon sinning, perhaps that immortality was destroyed, thereby ensuring eventual physical death again. The scriptures are silent on this matter. All we know is that they eventually did die. But we can infer that IF they were previously immortal, it was due to the fruit of the Tree of Life, not because of innocence. And they were not immortal immediately after they had been created. And unless every animal on the face of the earth had also eaten of the Tree of Life, animals would have also been mortal prior to the Fall.

Men were vegetarians before the Flood? Read it where? Where do the scriptures say that? No animal death before the flood? What about the offering of Abel? And where did the animal skins come from that were used to cover Adam and Eve after the Fall? :cool:
 
Groundhog Phil i looked at your “death before the Fall” articles and i was negatively impressed. These articles remind me of the way the Protestants try to explain away the Real Presence. Its amazing the way a Protestand can take John chapter 6 and explain away EVERY clear teaching of JESUS about the REAL BODY and REAL BLOOD. “Oh here the Body means faith in Christ and here the Blood means accepting Christ. See later He says the FLESH profits nothing, you see and then this negates the whole thing…”
Code: 
   Groundhog Phil, if you really put your mind to it, you can find some way to make the clear teaching of Scripture seem not so clear.  "Where there is a will there is a way."  Especially by using big words and fancy reasoning, Phil, almost any Scripture could be made to lose its meaning.  Thus your articles have found a way to make "a day" not be a day, and "death" to mean only "spiritual death."  Phil if someone informed you that your grandma died, would you ask, "now lets get this straight---was it physical or spiritual death?"

   SAINT PAUL didnt say "spiritual death came with the first sin," he said "death."  "Evening and morning" implies 24 hours periods, Groundhog Phil.  Later in the Old Testament, the idea is repeated, "In SIX DAYS did God create the Heavens and Earth."
Sure, the seventh day may be said to, in a sense, extend into the present day or into Heaven, but not the first six. Nowhere does it say the first six days were extended, only the seventh, “and on the seventh day God rested.” Any thing else is your idea, not the Bible’s.
This is the same type of spiritual scam that the Protestants pull: "This is My Body obviously means 'This symbolizes My Body'"
 
40.png
wildleafblower:
I’m trying to figure out why I’ve got this headache. I just read in “Choosing Your Forum Wisely” found on this forum
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=6487
that it states, “Do you find yourself asking how to respond to issues or how to better understand issues? Do you find yourself asking about passages from articles or books or how to present the faith effectively? Are you talking about conversion or the conversion process? Use the Apologetics forum.” When you click “Apologetics” (nothing shows up except ‘The Page CANNOT BE DISPLAYED’ url forumdisplay.php/?f=20)). Isn’t apologetics the branch of theology? Science isn’t theology. I’m really confused. Science isn’t theology. How can there be a topic of discussion such as ‘T-Rex bone discovery supports a young earth’? I thought from all that I’ve read the Vatican officals doesn’t want to have Catholics mixing science with theology. Why can’t we have a Science forum? When I want to ask questions or learn about science I could go there and when I want to know about theology I could come to the Apologetics forum. As a new member can’t I do that then I wouldn’t get a headache when trying to learn about science. Thank you.
Click to expand...
As a Chistian, I think it is important to develop a worldview that integrates truth from a variety of disciplines. What we believe in other areas may have important implications for what we believe theologically, so discussions such as this are relevant in an Apologetics forum, although I see nothing wrong with a sub-forum for scientific issues that impact faith issues.

I think what is meant by cautioning against mixing theology with science is to avoid blurring what is scientific with what is theological. But that does not mean that both disciplines cannot be discussed in a given conversation. It also does not mean that the Bible does not contain any naturalistic truths that are also supported by science.
 
Men were vegetarians before the Flood? Read it where? Where do the scriptures say that?
Click to expand...
okay petra (i like that band), i will spell this out for you.

Genesis 1:29-30 “And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps o the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so”

(notice the only food for men and animals were PLANTS)

Later in Genesis 9 after the FLOOD we see:
Genesis 9:1-3 "So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the FEAR OF YOU and the DREAD of you shall be on EVERY BEAST of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be FOOD FOR YOU. I have given you all things, even as he green herbs.”

(this was the first meat eating, petra)
 
40.png
wildleafblower:
I’m trying to figure out why I’ve got this headache. I just read in “Choosing Your Forum Wisely” found on this forum
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=6487
that it states, “Do you find yourself asking how to respond to issues or how to better understand issues? Do you find yourself asking about passages from articles or books or how to present the faith effectively? Are you talking about conversion or the conversion process? Use the Apologetics forum.” When you click “Apologetics” (nothing shows up except ‘The Page CANNOT BE DISPLAYED’ url forumdisplay.php/?f=20). Isn’t apologetics the branch of theology? Science isn’t theology. I’m really confused. Science isn’t theology. How can there be a topic of discussion such as ‘T-Rex bone discovery supports a young earth’? I thought from all that I’ve read the Vatican officals doesn’t want to have Catholics mixing science with theology. Why can’t we have a Science forum?
.
Click to expand...
:eek:**EEK - No Science Forum!!:eek:

**Reconciling the findings of scienvce with the teaching of the Church is mainstream apologetics. Sorry about the headache but it’s probably a symptom of unaccustomed THINKING which we all know is really tough. But it’s worth it. Happy the man or woman who can reconcile his faith with science, but no-one said it was easy.

A science forum would rapidly become a ghetto, a wasteland for geeks and pointed heads like me. Then I’d disappear (which some might rather welcome I suppose) because since I talk to other scientists and engineers all day, why would I want to do that out of work?

The best cross fertilisation happens the way the forum is organised now - I’d prefer to leave it that way. I benefit from other non-scientific discussions and apologetics, you know.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
40.png
three-sixteen:
okay petra (i like that band), i will spell this out for you.

Genesis 1:29-30 “And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps o the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so”

(notice the only food for men and animals were PLANTS)

Later in Genesis 9 after the FLOOD we see:
Genesis 9:1-3 "So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the FEAR OF YOU and the DREAD of you shall be on EVERY BEAST of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be FOOD FOR YOU. I have given you all things, even as he green herbs.”

(this was the first meat eating, petra)
Click to expand...
Thank you, 3-16. I missed that and appreciate your pointing it out. However, diet aside, I would enjoy your response to my other comments.

You wrote: “For the fist 1600 years or so of man’s existence—the time up to the FLOOD there was no killing or death of animals.”

Are you suggesting that animals did not even die of old age until after the Flood? Are you saying there were 1600 year old elephants and lions walking around until then? Surely, you must not be suggesting that. Not only did animals die of old age, but they were also killed before the Flood. Adam and Eve used animal skins to cover themselves after the Fall, and Abel’s offering to God was a slaughtered lamb.

It is also clear that there was death before the Fall. Given that the Tree of Life only had purpose for Adam and Eve in their innocent state, why did God give them this tree if they were already immortal when they were created? If they needed the Tree to become immortal, did animal immortality depend upon eating the fruit also? If not, then why were animals immortal by default and not humans? (Again, that humans were immortal by default is not an option because the Tree of Life only had purpose for Adam and Eve in their innocent state, and if they were already immortal, the tree would have no purpose.)

The notion that there was no death at all prior to the Fall and especially the Flood completely breaks down . . .
 
Alec said, “Sorry about the headache but it’s probably a symptom of unaccustomed THINKING which we all know is really tough. But it’s worth it. Happy the man or woman who can reconcile his faith with science, but no-one said it was easy.”

Your comment isn’t meant to be condescending is it? 🙂 I’m more than capable of THINKING about faith and science and ‘faith with science’ even if I don’t profess to have a pointed head! 😃 ‘Faith with science’ seems to be fashionable these days. (Far be it from me to prevent the wave of satisfaction.) The truth is that often times when science and faith butt heads the name calling becomes tainted with a spirit of meanness that crosses the line of civility. It’s all about the tongue isn’t it? Without the tongue how can you think? Or is it without the tongue you can think without hearing how you sound?

Does a person’s happiness really depends upon a reconciliation between ‘faith with science’? Aren’t there many people who are perfectly happy with one or the other or neither?

Alec said, “A science forum would rapidly become a ghetto, a wasteland for geeks and pointed heads like me. Then I’d disappear (which some might rather welcome I suppose) because since I talk to other scientists and engineers all day, why would I want to do that out of work?”

Ok, you’re a geek with a pointed head :eek: that talks all day to other geeks (some with pointed heads, some round heads) in a place called ‘wasteland’, and you’ve discovered your enjoyment is geeking it with other geekees and non-geekees in the arena of ‘faith with science’ on this website because you won’t disappear? (REALLY? I don’t think you will ever disappear unless you want to disappear.) You seem to be implying that you wish to combine the two, ‘faith with science’. What’s your faith, Alec? 😃

Alec said, “The best cross fertilisation happens the way the forum is organised now - I’d prefer to leave it that way. I benefit from other non-scientific discussions and apologetics, you know.”

I now know that you THINK it’s beneficial to participate in non-scientific discussions and apologetics. I assume you are telling me that apologetics is ‘faith with science’. Am I correct? Can we then have science without faith? I’m not asking to be rid of the apologetics forum only to add a science forum. I THINK it’s a reasonable request in mainstream THINKING. Don’t you? I recall Phil thinking along my lines. How do ‘we’ go about determining
‘what’ benefits who? Whose in charge?

Alec, have I provided you with an enlightening out-of-work experience? 🙂
 
dearest petra,

Let me fine tune my position here: not that animals didn’t die before the Flood, but that man did not eat animals before the Flood, nor did animals attack man before the Flood. Things were peaceful between the two. Yes, it was GOD who covered Adam and Eve with animal skins after their sin—the first Sacrifice for sin. We see that death happened IMMEDIATELY upon Adam and Eve’s sin, “in Adam all die.”

Also this: there is not really a big question about whether or not animals or man ate from the Tree of Life yet, at the time of the Fall. Because, petra, the Fall happened VERY SOON after the Creation of the Universe. Man and animals were both created on the Sixth Day. The Fall happened very soon after, perhaps within a few days. This is verified by the Writings of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, in “The Life of JESUS CHRIST and Biblical Revelations.” I HIGHLY recommend this book, as well as “The Mystical City of God,” by Blessed Mary of Agreda. Both of these books are excellent and unique (must-reads in my opinion) and fill in the details of MANY events that occur in the Bible.

In summary, petra, neither man nor beast had much chance to grow old and need to eat from the Tree of Life (animals can eat fruit to, right petra?)

I hope this helps, petra:)
 
316 << This is the same type of spiritual scam that the Protestants pull: “This is My Body obviously means ‘This symbolizes My Body’” >>

This is all you have? I think we are done.

Death meaning primarily spiritual death or “separation from God” because of sin (cf. Romans 5:12; 6:23, wages of sin is death, gift of God is eternal life; also Rev 20, lake of fire is “second death” etc) is a well accepted and defensible interpretation, and days not meaning 24 hours is also.

Genesis Teaches the Days are Not 24 Hours
Defense of the Day-Age Interpretation
Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days

I link this site since he is an old earth creationist and deals with a lot of the biblical objections of young earthers.

If you have no response to the science nor the modern statements of the Popes, we are definitely done here. I’ll take the Popes over your biblical interpretations, thanks. Groundhog Day was a nice movie, but it has nothing to do with me. 😃

Phil P
 
Phil, you never answered why there was only centimeters of moon dust. Or could you tell me why there is not nearly enough mud on the ocean floor for billions of years (but only a few thousand years worth) or perhaps you could explain polystrata fossils to me? Polystrata fossils go through several layers of million year old dirt. Many fossilized trees are found that exist at once in several layers of supposedly really old dirt. Can you explain this? Also Phil we are losing our moon every year, but if you calculate the speed we are losing the moon, and go back in time, you will find that only a couple hundred thousand years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth that the high tides would have flooded the earth twice a day. Can you explain this Phil, considering you believe life and even human life to have existed on the earth at that time? How about the reason for so many large death pits around the world? Do these not rather give evidence of a world-wide flood and not slow gradual processes as you believe, because only animals that are buried rapidly form fossils. How about the fact that the Bible talks about a layer of water around the earth’s atmosphere that fell during the Flood. This layer of water would have protected life on earth from harmful rays, enabling men and animals to live longer and grow bigger, explaining the ages of man in Genesis and also the giant specimens of all types of animals and plants we find in the past. Phil, how about the fact that carbon dates that don’t line up with expected results are not published? For example, Phil, when a live seal is dated at 3000 years old, this is not discussed. Or how about the rocks that formed during Mount Saint Helens, that formed miniature Grand Canyons in a few hours and were later “dated” using modern techniques to be thousands and even millions of years old? Are these dating techniques all they’re cracked up to be?

Phil, i believe you are deceived and i will pray the Rosary for you daily, because, Phil, you have a lot of little disciples here, who i believe would be more open and accepting of sensible Creationist arguments if it wasn’t for you. God Bless, my friend. (btw im leaving on a trip for a week. Cheers)
 
Phil -
I’ll give you a breather and take up a couple of these…
40.png
three-sixteen:
Phil, you never answered why there was only centimeters of moon dust.
Click to expand...
Sure, the calculations purporting to show hundreds of feet of moon dust were wrong, based on bad data. See here
Or could you tell me why there is not nearly enough mud on the ocean floor for billions of years (but only a few thousand years worth)
Click to expand...
This is just the moon dust one again, right? :rolleyes:
or perhaps you could explain polystrata fossils to me? Polystrata fossils go through several layers of million year old dirt. Many fossilized trees are found that exist at once in several layers of supposedly really old dirt. Can you explain this?
Click to expand...
Sure. Read all about it here or here .
Or how about the rocks that formed during Mount Saint Helens, that formed miniature Grand Canyons in a few hours and were later “dated” using modern techniques to be thousands and even millions of years old? Are these dating techniques all
they’re cracked up to be?
Click to expand...
There should be plenty here
here and here to stimulate your curiousity.
Phil, i believe you are deceived and i will pray the Rosary for you daily, because, Phil, you have a lot of little disciples here, who i believe would be more open and accepting of sensible Creationist arguments if it wasn’t for you.
Click to expand...
Hey, I’m not a disciple of Phil, but I’d be happy if you’d include me also in your prayers, as I will you in mine. The rosary is certainly one of my favorites. And you will let us know when you plan to unveil some of your sensible literal creationist arguments, won’t you? 😉
 
zian,

im wondering, do u guys not have a brain of your own? cant you put this into your own words, or do you always have to give a million links that speak in well-thought-out stylized jargon. When i brought up polystrate fossils you gave me two links that both said (after sifting through the fluff) the cause of polystrate fossils was “rapid sedimentation.”
do you not have your own brain? oh, you want to know about such and such well try here or here or there or how about try this.

just use your own mind and thoughts please. if you had you would have realized that you dont have a good answer to my question. To say that polystrate fossils are caused by “rapid sedimentation” is to imply the possibility of a world-wide flood, and it absolutely goes against the teaching of Uniformitarianism (slow gradual processes.)

so please reply in your own words, your own thoughts and summaries. This is a forum, not a linkathon. thanks, 3-16
 
316 << Phil, i believe you are deceived and i will pray the Rosary for you daily, because, Phil, you have a lot of little disciples here >>

Thank you for praying for me. Kent Hovind is not reliable. Have a nice vacation.

Those Young Earth Arguments

Age of the Earth articles

I am showing you my sources, now can you show me your sources? Was it Kent Hovind, or AnswersInGenesis this time?

Phil P
 
40.png
three-sixteen:
ianjo the behemoth in Job has “a tail like a cedar tree.” look at a picture of a hippo on the internet–it has a tail like a twig. the NAB commentators are not canonicly inspired but Job is.

READ IT! For the fist 1600 years or so of man’s existence—the time up to the FLOOD there was no killing or death of animals. Men were vegetarians. READ IT! Only AFTER the FLOOD was man commanded to eat animals, because for the first time there was enmity between man and animals, who had lived peacefully up to that time. Thus man’s sin led up to not only his personal death (spiritually and physically) but also the physical death of animals after the FLOOD.
Click to expand...
Three-Sixteen,

Actually the verse in Job 40: 15-19 says that he carries his tail like a cedar. Not that his tail actually looks like a cedar, but that he carries it in this manner. I am constantly amazed that when people see large creatures mentioned in the Bible, it is assumed that they had to be dinosaurs. There are actually a number of very large mammals that are extinct today that could easily fit the descriptions in the Bible. Examples include Giant Ground Sloths(Megatherium), Indricotherium, Ancylotherium, and Moeritherium.
All of these mammals were very large and herbivorous. Also, although the language is certainly descriptive in nature, I do not believe its goal is to provide an accurate picture of the animal. From these verses and the following, I merely deduce a large strong powerful animal is being described.

Job 40: 15-19: See, besides you I made Behemoth, that feeds on grass like an ox. Behold the strength in his loins, and his vigor in the sinews of his belly. He carries his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are like cables. His bones are like tubes of bronze; his frame is like iron rods.

Verses in the book of Genesis written before the time of the flood contridict your statment. I have included these verses. In Genesis 3:21, leather garments are provided for Adam and Eve. Leather is a product produced from the hide of dead animals. In Genesis 4:2-4, Abel is described as keeping flocks of animals. Also, although this flock could be tended for products such as milk and wool, it is not unlikely that they would never be eaten for meat. Abel ctually sacrifices one of them to God requiring its death. No death of animals before the flood? I personally do not believe that. Carnivorous animals require meat for survival. If you merely acknowledge the fossil record, this type of animal and diet requirement certainly exists. A true (obligate) carnivore requires animal flesh for survival; its digestive system cannot process vegetable matter. Without this food source, it would die.

Genesis 3:21:
For the man and his wife the LORD God made leather garments, with which he clothed them.
Genesis 4: 2-4:
The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have produced a man with the help of the LORD.” Next she bore his brother Abel. Abel became a keeper of flocks, and Cain a tiller of the soil. In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the soil,
while Abel, for his part, brought one of the best firstlings of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
 
When reading Job, why didnt i think of a Indricotherium, Ancylotherium, or a Moeritherium!!?? whats wrong with me, anyway?
 
Wait…one more.

316 << How about the fact that the Bible talks about a layer of water around the earth’s atmosphere that fell during the Flood. This layer of water would have protected life on earth from harmful rays, enabling men and animals to live longer and grow bigger, explaining the ages of man in Genesis and also the giant specimens of all types of animals and plants we find in the past. >>

Otherwise known as the “water vapor” canopy – the AnswersInGenesis site includes this under "Arguments Creationists Should NOT Use" – they list it as doubtful.

“What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?
Canopy theory. This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water; but some creationists suggest a partial canopy may have been present.”

Even creationist Walt Brown opposes it here.

The water canopy idea has been pretty well demolished by Glenn Morton as well. And no, he’s not deceived either. :rolleyes:

Are you strictly a Kent Hovind kind of creationist, it would appear so?

Phil P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top