Dinosaurs

[Kdall]

Prehistory?
In the beginning, God created. And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so....And there was evening and morning, the 6th day,



Giant ferns, trees, and animals are consistent with God's World and the perfect creation.

If giant arthropods could not possibly survive (due to lack of oxygen) in an atmosphere of the same composition that humans and other modern animals require to survive, how did they all live together? No matter which atmospheric composition that you choose, only one or the other (modern animals or giant terrestrial arthropods) could survive it. The other group would suffocate. So how does your ideology deal with this dilemma?

I want a real answer, please. Not just you repeating Genesis 1 over and over and acting like that's a logical, scientific thought. Thanks

 

[Kdall]

Get a book called "after the flood" the early post flood history of europe traced back to Noah.

Go to chapter 10 dinosaurs from anglo saxon and other records.

Im sure this will blow your mind,and what has been held from us in history.

I just now saw this post. I'm tempted to go buy this book

 

[Kdall]

From your link:
In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real enough, but the "print" itself appears to be due solely to inorganic, geologic phenomena. After mainstream rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad, 1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), only a few creationists continued to suggest this was a real print, while most fromer advocates of the specimen have quietly abandoned the case.

Isn't it hilarious how often YECs here just google something and post the first link they see with a title they like, without even bothering to read the article? All it takes is a quick proofread to avoid looking stupid, but as we all know reading scientific literature is a major headache for these people

 

[Alate_One]

Sure... But there are enough cave drawings, sculptures and pottery to consider it as an evidence. Consider the Chinese zodiac as real animals... all except the 'dragon' (dinosaur)?

Hardly.

Where are the cave drawings of dinosaurs alongside accurate drawings of modern animals like lions?

Also consider God's Word as an evidence...
Job 40:15 "Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16
What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!

17
Its tail sways like a cedar;

There are interpretations that render the "tail" as a penis, which has a long tradition. See the King James version:

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

There's also the strong possibility that the Behemoth is a legendary animal rather than a real one. Behemoth and Leviathan feature in ancient near eastern myths of the area as monsters with godlike powers.

 

[6days]

There's also the strong possibility that the Behemoth is a legendary animal rather than a real one. Behemoth and Leviathan feature in ancient near eastern myths of the area as monsters with godlike powers.

There is also "the strong possibility" that God would not compare his strength and power to a legendary monster.
V19 "It ranks first among the works of God"

 

[Kdall]

There is also "the strong possibility" that God would not compare his strength and power to a legendary monster.
V19 "It ranks first among the works of God"

If giant arthropods could not possibly survive (due to lack of oxygen) in an atmosphere of the same composition that humans and other modern animals require to survive, how did they all live together? No matter which atmospheric composition that you choose, only one or the other (modern animals or giant terrestrial arthropods) could survive it. The other group would suffocate. So how does your ideology deal with this dilemma?

I want a real answer, please. Not just you repeating Genesis 1 over and over and acting like that's a logical, scientific thought. Thanks

Just making sure you didn't miss my question

 

[6days]

Just making sure you didn't miss my question

You asked why giant arthropods didn't survive..... They did.
They have gone extinct as have many other animals, quite likely shortly after the flood.
Which day(s) of the creation week did God create them?

 

[Kdall]

You asked why giant arthropods didn't survive..... They did.
They have gone extinct as have many other animals, quite likely shortly after the flood.
Which day(s) of the creation week did God create them?

Arthropods the size of some we find in the fossil record could not be sustained by current atmospheric oxygen levels, while some modern animals could not have survived in an atmosphere with such an increased oxygen level.

Do you understand what I'm saying here? Humans, for example, could never have existed at the same time as these giant terrestrial arthropods because they require vastly different atmospheric conditions to survive. How do you reconcile that?

 

[6days]

Except for Barbarian plainly showed you that Darwin said exactly the opposite of what you're claiming "evolutionists" have been saying for 200 years. So either you're lying or you didn't bother to read his post before replying to it, which demonstrates that you have no interest in the truth. Just an interest in your own dogma

Perhaps you are trying to read too fast.
Evolutionists from the time of Darwin to the time of Kdall have been trying to convince people that a "useless" appendix is evidence of evolution. Science has shown that our appendix does have several functions.
If a "useless" appendix is evidence FOR evolution...
then a usefull appendix must be evidence for the Biblical Creator?

 

[6days]

Arthropods the size of some we find in the fossil record could not be sustained by current atmospheric oxygen levels, while some modern animals could not have survived in an atmosphere with such an increased oxygen level.

Do you understand what I'm saying here?

Yep... You are saying that you reject God's Word.
We don't know what the respiratory system was like in giant arthropods.

 

[Kdall]

Perhaps you are trying to read too fast.
Evolutionists from the time of Darwin to the time of Kdall have been trying to convince people that a "useless" appendix is evidence of evolution. Science has shown that our appendix does have several functions.
If a "useless" appendix is evidence FOR evolution...
then a usefull appendix must be evidence for the Biblical Creator?

You can make the philosophical case that it is evidence for a creator. But it's a far more convincing line of argument to make a scientific case for the appendix as an organ whose original function was no longer needed, developed another use, albeit a lesser one. And the latter has the added benefit of not calling on unprovable supernatural influences in order to make sense.

The Barbarian gave you an answer that's better than mine. And yes I did originally misunderstand what you were trying to say when I replied

 

[Kdall]

Yep... You are saying that you reject God's Word.
We don't know what the respiratory system was like in giant arthropods.

Yeah we do. For arachnids, book lungs. For insects, tracheae and spiracles (openings on the legs). Insects and arachnids have remained anatomically very constant throughout history, as the fossil record shows. And they've been very successful. If it ain't broke, don't fix it

 

[TracerBullet]

If giant arthropods could not possibly survive (due to lack of oxygen) in an atmosphere of the same composition that humans and other modern animals require to survive, how did they all live together? No matter which atmospheric composition that you choose, only one or the other (modern animals or giant terrestrial arthropods) could survive it. The other group would suffocate. So how does your ideology deal with this dilemma?

I want a real answer, please. Not just you repeating Genesis 1 over and over and acting like that's a logical, scientific thought. Thanks

Yep... You are saying that you reject God's Word.
We don't know what the respiratory system was like in giant arthropods.

You didn't really expect to get an honest answer now did you?

 

[Kdall]

You didn't really expect to get an honest answer now did you?

Expect, no. I was hoping

 

[Interplanner]

How much different was the atmosphere before and after the flood of Noah's time? Atmosphere change is found in the expression about the 'waters above the earth' aka "canopy" that existed only from creation to Noah.

 

[6days]

You can make the philosophical case that it is evidence for a creator. But it's a far more convincing line of argument to make a scientific case for the appendix as an organ whose original function was no longer needed, developed another use, albeit a lesser one.

You don't see how silly your story sounds?
It seems to me far more compelling to believe God's Word that we were fearfully and wonderfully made, but now live in a fallen world.

 

[Alate_One]

There is also "the strong possibility" that God would not compare his strength and power to a legendary monster.
V19 "It ranks first among the works of God"

You really don't understand anything about culture. At the time people in the region believed these monsters existed and that they were the most powerful thing around. Saying that God is the creator and master of said monsters, "demotes" them in people's minds. Likely the same reason the sun and moon weren't listed as being created on the first day.

We modern westerners have a totally different perspective than the writers of the bible.

None of the contemporaries to writers of the Bible identified behemoth as anything other than a large mammal of some kind (Book of Enoch etc.).

 

[6days]

You really don't understand anything about culture. At the time people in the region believed these monsters existed and that they were the most powerful thing around.

Job 40;19 "It ranks first among the works of God"
Evolutionists continually need to explain that Gods Word does not mean what it says. His Word was made for simple people such as myself. Your revision seems like nonsense... The "first amongst God's Works" is only a mythical monster?
Why can't it be a real animal?

 

[Stripe]

You really don't understand anything about culture. At the time people in the region believed these monsters existed and that they were the most powerful thing around. Saying that God is the creator and master of said monsters, "demotes" them in people's minds. Likely the same reason the sun and moon weren't listed as being created on the first day.We modern westerners have a totally different perspective than the writers of the bible.None of the contemporaries to writers of the Bible identified behemoth as anything other than a large mammal of some kind (Book of Enoch etc.).

Making up a story isn't evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

And now we're seeing the convenience of defending creationism.

Remember, 6days has repeatedly told us that creationism is "a belief about the past" and not science. So that sets up a really convenient scenario. The creationists can try and try to justify creationism from a scientific standpoint, but once things start to turn south and not go their way, they switch back to it being merely a religious belief and start questioning the faith of those debating them and citing the Bible as evidence.