|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/15/2008 8:16:13 PM
|
|
|
Zack_NorcalRiders
Posts: 149
Joined: 10/24/2008
Status: offline
|
Were there dinosaurs before Adam end eve? were they like gods first creation or something? just wondering how the bible explains them .
_____________________________
Lord forgive me for i have sinned , i hit a 4th gear jump 5th gear pinned
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/15/2008 10:02:27 PM
|
|
|
LCannon
Posts: 1228
Joined: 2/22/2007
From: Lebanon, OR
Status: offline
|
See Link
_____________________________
"It may be that when the angels go about their task of praising God they play
only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they
play Mozart and then too our dear Lord listens with special pleasure."(Karl Barth)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/15/2008 10:39:49 PM
|
|
|
internetwraith
Posts: 14
Joined: 11/15/2008
Status: offline
|
It doesn't explain them... but science can.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/16/2008 12:27:12 AM
|
|
|
LCannon
Posts: 1228
Joined: 2/22/2007
From: Lebanon, OR
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: internetwraith
It doesn't explain them... but science can.
There's only two world views at its core, speculation and revelation. Anybody can speculate and we see the result; a dead grave. The world can't see revelation because it's too Glorious for our limited imagination but the result is everywhere from symbioses to the grandeur of heavens.
_____________________________
"It may be that when the angels go about their task of praising God they play
only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they
play Mozart and then too our dear Lord listens with special pleasure."(Karl Barth)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/17/2008 2:04:02 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 698
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zack_NorcalRiders
Were there dinosaurs before Adam end eve? were they like gods first creation or something? just wondering how the bible explains them .
Dinosaurs were created on day 6 with the rest of the land animals, all of whom were created before Adam. No animals are recorded to have been created at any other time than days 5 or 6, with man being the last living creature to have been designed on day 6. Assuming there were no extinctions of any of the Kinds before the flood, they would also have been present on the ark.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/18/2008 3:58:17 AM
|
|
|
RobertByers
Posts: 30
Joined: 8/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zack_NorcalRiders
Were there dinosaurs before Adam end eve? were they like gods first creation or something? just wondering how the bible explains them .
The bible explains the major points about the dinosaur world now known to have existed.
They were created during creation week and destroyed during the flood.
They were surely unclean creatures and so pairs of each kind were taken on the Ark. After the flood the clean animals came to dominate the world quickly over the unclean. It was probably the opposite before as the fossil record hints. The ratio on the ark was meant to change fauna dominance post flood. The dinos all dies out after the flood and left no fossil evidence as there was no fossil making mechanism. By the time there was some centuries after the flood they were all gone.
The fossil evidence of dinos always shows creatures that were strong before the momment of death/fossilization. No sick/old age dinos are ever found. Showing they didn't fall into usefull mud to preserve them, but the mud/water was what killed them suddenly. in fact many instances of herds are found and admitted to be from water death. A nova show of late documents this. Yet in fact water death killed all dinosaurs found in rock.
Dinosaurs help creationism in making the case for sudden extinction, evolutiuon admits this but talks of space rocks and volcanos, and how the dinos are found in rock shows sudden envelopment everywhere suggesting a great event everywhere.
Reasonable intelligent men must admit the bible was spot on about the dinosaurs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/18/2008 10:34:48 AM
|
|
|
catfighter
Posts: 102
Joined: 10/17/2008
Status: offline
|
Dinosaurs lived between 250 and 65 million years ago. Humans have been around for around 100,000 years. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this and not a shred of scientific evidence to support the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/18/2008 11:07:02 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 94
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
just wondering how the bible explains them .
You have to remember that the word "dinosaur" was not invented until the mid-1800's, so you can't do a word search for the term. Prior to that, large reptiles were usually referred to as "dragons". Although most dragon stories are obviously fantastical, it is interesting that almost all cultures have dragon stories. Where did the idea come from? Ancient Chinese had no doubt dragons existed, which is why they appear in their calender along with a host of other creatures no one doubts exist.
The word "dragon" was used in several places in the KJV Bible: Nehemiah 2:13, Psalm 91:13, Isaiah 27:1 & 51:9, Jeremiah 51:34, Ezekiel 29:3, and the many places in Revelation that all version still use it today.
Some say "Leviathon" (Job 3:8 & 41:1, Psalms 74:14 & 104:26, Isaiah 27:1) refers to some kind of large reptile; described as a "gliding/coiling serpent" and a "monster of the sea".
Then there is "behemoth" (Job 40:15) described by Job as so great and powerful that only "his Maker can approach him with his sword". Some suggest this may be some sort of brachiosaur. Others have discounted this, suggesting Job is referring to an elephant, or perhaps a hippo, but it is hard to imagine describing these with a tail that "sways like a cedar".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/24/2008 5:28:54 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 698
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: catfighter
Dinosaurs lived between 250 and 65 million years ago. Humans have been around for around 100,000 years. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this and not a shred of scientific evidence to support the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs.
I think we've all heard this song at least 250 to 65 million times in our public educations. The question was how the Bible explains them. Let's stay on topic. Otherwise, make a comment on one of the other threads about dinosaurs where such a comment would be welcome and on topic.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/25/2008 11:13:57 AM
|
|
|
alex123
Posts: 58
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
The fossil evidence of dinos always shows creatures that were strong before the momment of death/fossilization. No sick/old age dinos are ever found.
Not so, Robert. There are (literally) hundreds of fossils showing seriously broken legs, jaws, pelvises etc., as well as severe arthritic conditions and bone infections. (See links on http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Feb/msg00137.html) In modern animals, such injuries would be considered debilitating and ultimately fatal. No animal with such injuries could be called 'strong' at the time of death.
quote:
Yet in fact water death killed all dinosaurs found in rock.
Again, not so. Many dinosaur fossils are buried in rock derived from aeolian (wind-blown) sand. The American Museum of Natural History exhibit here http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/fightingdinos/ex-fd.html is a famous fossil buried in such a way. I'm surprised you never came acrss it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/26/2008 5:59:37 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3095
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The ratio on the ark was meant to change fauna dominance post flood. That's an interesting hypothesis, RobertB, but would not the life cycles, reproductive rates, and genetic potential for adaptability all be far more likely to influence the dominance of certain fauna in the post-flood environment? I've always held to the notion that more pairs of clean animals were required to establish healthy dietary patterns and provide for sacrificial needs.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/27/2008 2:05:49 AM
|
|
|
RobertByers
Posts: 30
Joined: 8/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: alex123
quote:
The fossil evidence of dinos always shows creatures that were strong before the momment of death/fossilization. No sick/old age dinos are ever found.
Not so, Robert. There are (literally) hundreds of fossils showing seriously broken legs, jaws, pelvises etc., as well as severe arthritic conditions and bone infections. (See links on http://dml.cmnh.org/1999Feb/msg00137.html) In modern animals, such injuries would be considered debilitating and ultimately fatal. No animal with such injuries could be called 'strong' at the time of death.
quote:
Yet in fact water death killed all dinosaurs found in rock.
Again, not so. Many dinosaur fossils are buried in rock derived from aeolian (wind-blown) sand. The American Museum of Natural History exhibit here http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/fightingdinos/ex-fd.html is a famous fossil buried in such a way. I'm surprised you never came acrss it.
I didn't know of dinos caught in winddirt. No matter it is what covered this winddirt that is the source of preservation. This is from a minor aspect of the flood. Perhaps its not wing but a mistake about sediment being knocked about. Very little anyways. 99% of dinos are in sed rock.
I stick to my point about no sick/old dinos being found. First 99% of dinos wre healthy at death. now you bring up about broken bones. Well they probably were broke from the origin of death. The crushing of sediment and against land/other creatures. Second your only guessing that broken bones were the origin of death for these dinos. They could survive with them depending on this or that.
Even if a few diseased dinos were in the record its just a coincedence they were this way at the flood year. Again no evidence they died from their sickness. The covering of sediment and water behind that is the firat and best idea of the origin of their deaths. The ratio of strong to sick makes a sudden disaster logically insistant.
Old age and sickness is seldom found in these dino fossils and no evidence they died from this. Youth and sediment is the defining nature of these creatures found today. Plenty of babes and even eggs.
A good point for creationism.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/27/2008 2:20:23 AM
|
|
|
RobertByers
Posts: 30
Joined: 8/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
The ratio on the ark was meant to change fauna dominance post flood. That's an interesting hypothesis, RobertB, but would not the life cycles, reproductive rates, and genetic potential for adaptability all be far more likely to influence the dominance of certain fauna in the post-flood environment? I've always held to the notion that more pairs of clean animals were required to establish healthy dietary patterns and provide for sacrificial needs.
Thanks.
These options for rapid reproduction are fine. Yet the clean/unclean ratio would really spurt things along to a quick domination. I don't know the rates for dinos etc anyways. Also God is showing a plan to change the fauna reality on the planet. It was a unclean dominace before for sure and now is to be a clean one.
I would add that clean animals were pretty much everything and so not a part of human diet. it was for repopulating the earth and not feeding small numbers of people. Likewise the people's need to sacrifice would not make a dent in the animals numbers however long. The world was to be filled quickly with life by gods command.
With rapid repopulation there is lots to sacrificve without needing a head start. This head start of 7:1 would not last if that was the purpose.
The earth today is a clean MAMMAL world and before was a unclean dominance. the ratio on the ark is a good clue that this was the plan and so the result.
In fact creationists a thousand years ago could of predicted from this ratio that if flood year fossils were found, showing life at the start of the flood, they would show either 7:1 clean/unclean or the opposite or a equal ratio. We know it was a unclean dominance and so a prediction of thinking creationist from the bible would be successfull.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/28/2008 1:20:44 PM
|
|
|
alex123
Posts: 58
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
I didn't know of dinos caught in winddirt. No matter it is what covered this winddirt that is the source of preservation. This is from a minor aspect of the flood. Perhaps its not wing but a mistake about sediment being knocked about. Very little anyways. 99% of dinos are in sed rock.
It's probably safe to say that all fossils are found in sedimentary rock! What is important though is the nature and therefore the origin of the rock and the implications for any creatures preserved in them. Many sandstones are clearly produced under desert conditions in the virtual absence of water and and the preservation of any fossils therein must be the result of burial in dry sand rather than in mud or deposited silt. If a dinosaur is preserved in this way it must have died and been buried under dry sandy conditions and therefore cannot have been a flood victim. To remind you of your earlier statement "Showing they didn't fall into usefull mud to preserve them, but the mud/water was what killed them suddenly" - not always the case.
quote:
I stick to my point about no sick/old dinos being found. First 99% of dinos wre healthy at death.
How can you say this when so many fossil bones are found with clear evidence of advanced arthritis, osteomyelitis and similar pathogenic conditions?
quote:
now you bring up about broken bones. Well they probably were broke from the origin of death.
No, 'cos if you read the references you find that the breaks show signs of some degree of healing, indicating that the breaks must have occurred while the animal was still alive
quote:
Second your only guessing that broken bones were the origin of death for these dinos. They could survive with them depending on this or that.
Well, I didn't actually say that broken bones were the cause of death (especially in view of evidence for pre-mortem healing) but all the evidence from modern animals shows that these kinds of injury and illness make it highly unlikely that the animal wiould have survived for any length of time.
quote:
Even if a few diseased dinos were in the record its just a coincedence they were this way at the flood year.
Yet fossils buried in desert sands could not have died in the Flood.
quote:
Again no evidence they died from their sickness. The covering of sediment and water behind that is the firat and best idea of the origin of their deaths. The ratio of strong to sick makes a sudden disaster logically insistant.
Do you have any numbers for the ratio of sick/old to healthy dinosaurs? Many many fossil bones show pathological conditions. (And not all fossils are buried in water-borne sediments).
quote:
Old age and sickness is seldom found in these dino fossils and no evidence they died from this.
Not seldom, frequently!
quote:
Youth and sediment is the defining nature of these creatures found today. Plenty of babes and even eggs.
But extensive pathology in many adult bones
quote:
A good point for creationism.
Meaning?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/28/2008 5:09:49 PM
|
|
|
jmjphe
Posts: 101
Joined: 4/29/2008
Status: offline
|
I always thought dinosaurs were cool. Ya know big lizards with big teeth and horns and stuff. I looked at bones and renderings and what not from all over the internet of the T-Rex. It's upper chest area looks kinda small. I mean these things were pretty big though. They were able to run and probably run pretty quickly. I want to go into La-La land here for a moment...If we were able to somehow bring an authentic T-Rex into our world today...could it even breath well? I mean considering its predicted movments and speeds, and its smll upper chest, would our oxygen supply here now be able to support it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 11/28/2008 6:21:12 PM
|
|
|
alex123
Posts: 58
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
If we were able to somehow bring an authentic T-Rex into our world today...could it even breath well? I mean considering its predicted movments and speeds, and its smll upper chest, would our oxygen supply here now be able to support it?
Very probably. The evidence seems to be that oxygen level have risen fairly steadily since the end of the Permian era 150mya and that these levels allowed for the evolution of larger animals and unlimately mammals (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0930_050930_mammal_oxygen_2.html). Current oxygen levels are higher now than in Jurassic or Cretaceous times.
Moreover, dinosaurs may appear to have relatively small chest cavities but it seems that they probably breathed in much the same way as birds do, pumping air into hollow spaces within their bones (http://www.livescience.com/animals/050713_dino_bird.html)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 12/1/2008 4:48:32 AM
|
|
|
RobertByers
Posts: 30
Joined: 8/20/2008
Status: offline
|
ALEX 123
Sandstone does not become stone because of wind and dirt lasting a long time. to become sandstone requires pressure from on top to cement the particles together to make rock. You didn't address my point about how winddirt became stone.?! Thats the flaw in your reasoning.
Now i say that this sandstone didn't come from wind blown dirt burying dinos. It all happened at once. The seeming wind blown material is just some special case of how the sediment was collected. Perhaps it was pressurized so finely it gives a impression of being wind blown. Wind blown sediment could only be deduced from its particle composition.
Geology has to date failed to understrand a mechanism that creationism knows existed. Turning instantly sediment/particles into rock.
Not wing but fine collected sediment is probably the origin. Including the prints of feet or raindrops even here and there.
I'm sure most dino fossils are mostly of strong age and few old. Although evolution should only find mostly old to account for fossilization.
If there was healing of bones, fine, then they must of been surviving in this state. Dinner after dinner. You make my case and not yours. No reason to see they died over time from starvation.
Its a good point for creationism to show that most dinos etc died in strength of life and therefore from a sudden event. indeed the event that actually fossilized them. The global flood moving water sediment with such pressure as to squeeze instantly underlying sediment/life in to rock.
same process as evolution claims but faster.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 12/1/2008 12:09:15 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 94
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Alex123:
It's probably safe to say that all fossils are found in sedimentary rock! What is important though is the nature and therefore the origin of the rock and the implications for any creatures preserved in them. Many sandstones are clearly produced under desert conditions in the virtual absence of water and
I have to wonder how this oxymoron is justified in the minds of those that call sandstone "wind deposited" sedimentary rock. Last I checked "sedimentary rock" = "rock formed by water-deposited sedements"; except when it doesn't? Does geology need a new major rock type classification? And how do you explain obvious silt deposits above and below sandstone layers?
I have to admit that I am pretty incredulous at the idea of all the continents of the world bobbing up and down above/below sea level a dozen or more times across millions of years. Has anyone calculated how much energy that would require? Where would that energy come from?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 12/1/2008 12:44:14 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3095
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I have to wonder how this oxymoron is justified in the minds of those that call sandstone "wind deposited" sedimentary rock. The religion of uniformitarianism as practiced by alex123 and other evolutionists justifies all kinds of faith-based nonsense thinly disguised as "science".
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 12/2/2008 10:32:55 AM
|
|
|
alex123
Posts: 58
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
Sandstone does not become stone because of wind and dirt lasting a long time. to become sandstone requires pressure from on top to cement the particles together to make rock. You didn't address my point about how winddirt became stone.?!
Aeolian sands become rock in the same way as any other clastic rock - the action of pressure derived from the continuous deposition of sediment. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandstone).
quote:
Now i say that this sandstone didn't come from wind blown dirt burying dinos.
You can say that if you like but the evidence is against you.
quote:
It all happened at once.
No, too much complex stratification for that to be the case.
quote:
The seeming wind blown material is just some special case of how the sediment was collected. Perhaps it was pressurized so finely it gives a impression of being wind blown. Wind blown sediment could only be deduced from its particle composition.
Not all sandstones are aeolian - 'sandstone' is a generic term for sedimentary rock with grains of a certain size. Some sandstones are marine in origin, some aeolian (again, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandstone) for details. Aeolian sandstones, however, are quite distinctive and are indeed identified by, amongst other things, grain structure and bedding planes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolian_sandstone).
quote:
Geology has to date failed to understrand a mechanism that creationism knows existed. Turning instantly sediment/particles into rock.
Geology doesn't know of any process of instant rock formation! (Unless you are referring to the the deposition of thin carbonate layers from the percolation of lime-rich water, such as the weak stalactites that sometimes form under concrete bridges? These hardly class as 'rock'!).
quote:
Not wing but fine collected sediment is probably the origin. Including the prints of feet or raindrops even here and there.
If a sedimentary rock has imprints of 'feet or raindrops' embedded in it that must surely be evidence against a single catastrophic event?
quote:
I'm sure most dino fossils are mostly of strong age and few old. Although evolution should only find mostly old to account for fossilization.
I don't really understand this statement - fossils are found in all stages, from eggs through juveniles to adults. Some fossils come from sick animals, some from animals in the 'prime of life' - so what?
quote:
If there was healing of bones, fine, then they must of been surviving in this state. Dinner after dinner. You make my case and not yours.
Your original statement read "The fossil evidence of dinos always shows creatures that were strong before the momment of death/fossilization. No sick/old age dinos are ever found". I refute this and I make your case, not mine? Interesting logic, Robert.
quote:
No reason to see they died over time from starvation.
Except that that is the case with modern animals that have debilitating fracture or illness - they either starve or (more often) become prey to some predator. If this is the case now, why should it have been different for ancient species?
quote:
Its a good point for creationism to show that most dinos etc died in strength of life and therefore from a sudden event.
It would be if it were so, but the evidence is that many dinosaur bones show the result of debilitating fractures, arthritis and osteomyelitis. To suggest that animals with such conditions were 'in strength of life' is to seriously ignore evidence to the contrary. I wonder why you would want to do that?
quote:
indeed the event that actually fossilized them. The global flood moving water sediment with such pressure as to squeeze instantly underlying sediment/life in to rock.
The geological evidence is against a single flood event accounting for fossilisation - there are too many different types of fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks, too much stratification and too many specific assemblages.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 12/2/2008 11:39:06 AM
|
|
|
alex123
Posts: 58
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
Last I checked "sedimentary rock" = "rock formed by water-deposited sedements"; except when it doesn't?
Check more often - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandstone " Principal environments of deposition may be split between terrestrial and marine, as illustrated by the following broad groupings:
Terrestrial environments
Rivers (levees, point bars, channel sands)
Alluvial fans
Glacial outwash
Lakes
Deserts (sand dunes and ergs)
Marine environments
Deltas
Beach and shoreface sands
Tidal flats
Offshore bars and sand waves
Storm deposits (tempestites)
Turbidites (submarine channels and fans) "
quote:
And how do you explain obvious silt deposits above and below sandstone layers?
From the rising and falling of sea and land levels. It's a well recognised phenomenon - even Darwin noted it as the result of an earthquake in South America.
quote:
I have to admit that I am pretty incredulous at the idea of all the continents of the world bobbing up and down above/below sea level a dozen or more times across millions of years.
Argument from incredulity - "I can't understand this, therefore it isn't true".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 12/4/2008 8:52:11 PM
|
|
|
RobertByers
Posts: 30
Joined: 8/20/2008
Status: offline
|
Alex123
Sayinf dunes are turned to stone from above sediment is possible but it comes down to evidence. the only way these old deposits can be checked is by the particles. I say the particles could mimmic sanddunes etc because of the special collection ability of the flood year. or simply some dune was covered by sediment from the flood sediment/pressure. no problem. Both of us have sand into stone and must account for it. It is the rock nature of the sediment/sand that is its origin of original collection.
Again however these are trivial deposits. Most sed rock is what water deposited sediment.
The dinos were killed in their strenght. not from sickness/oldage as should be the case. a good creationist observation.
Ok the flood first days would knock down the old ones and any sick but a ratio still making our case.
Broken bones must be great to bring demise of present creatures and just broken anf healed bones indicate a still vigourous dino.
In fact most carnivore dinos probably had this or that broke. Not the origin of death though.
The origin of death is exactly what we find them in. Sediment/water pressure deposition. Drown or smothered en mass.
Just what creationism wants to find.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 12/6/2008 1:38:52 PM
|
|
|
alex123
Posts: 58
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
Sayinf dunes are turned to stone from above sediment is possible but it comes down to evidence. the only way these old deposits can be checked is by the particles.
Absolutely. And when you check the particles they show clear evidence of aerial origin rather than aquatic.
quote:
I say the particles could mimmic sanddunes etc because of the special collection ability of the flood year.
You can say that if you like but do you have any evidence, or is it just an unfounded opinion?
quote:
or simply some dune was covered by sediment from the flood sediment/pressure. no problem.
No problem, apart from the fact that you have dinosaur remains inside the dune layer, so the dinosaur in question could not have died in the Flood!
quote:
Again however these are trivial deposits.
Not trivial if you want to claim, as you did, that all dinosaur fossils are of Flood origin.
quote:
The dinos were killed in their strenght. not from sickness/oldage as should be the case.
In spite of evidence to the contrary?
quote:
Ok the flood first days would knock down the old ones and any sick but a ratio still making our case.
What ratio of 'injured' to 'uninjured' fossil do you have, then?
quote:
Broken bones must be great to bring demise of present creatures and just broken anf healed bones indicate a still vigourous dino.
I will remind you of your original claim - "The fossil evidence of dinos always shows creatures that were strong before the momment of death/fossilization. No sick/old age dinos are ever found."
quote:
The origin of death is exactly what we find them in. Sediment/water pressure deposition. Drown or smothered en mass.
Except for those that died under desert conditions, of course.
quote:
Just what creationism wants to find.
Yes, I think you only find what you want to find.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 12/9/2008 10:39:39 PM
|
|
|
RobertByers
Posts: 30
Joined: 8/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: alex123
quote:
Sayinf dunes are turned to stone from above sediment is possible but it comes down to evidence. the only way these old deposits can be checked is by the particles.
Absolutely. And when you check the particles they show clear evidence of aerial origin rather than aquatic.
quote:
I say the particles could mimmic sanddunes etc because of the special collection ability of the flood year.
You can say that if you like but do you have any evidence, or is it just an unfounded opinion?
quote:
or simply some dune was covered by sediment from the flood sediment/pressure. no problem.
No problem, apart from the fact that you have dinosaur remains inside the dune layer, so the dinosaur in question could not have died in the Flood!
quote:
Again however these are trivial deposits.
Not trivial if you want to claim, as you did, that all dinosaur fossils are of Flood origin.
quote:
The dinos were killed in their strenght. not from sickness/oldage as should be the case.
In spite of evidence to the contrary?
quote:
Ok the flood first days would knock down the old ones and any sick but a ratio still making our case.
What ratio of 'injured' to 'uninjured' fossil do you have, then?
quote:
Broken bones must be great to bring demise of present creatures and just broken anf healed bones indicate a still vigourous dino.
I will remind you of your original claim - "The fossil evidence of dinos always shows creatures that were strong before the momment of death/fossilization. No sick/old age dinos are ever found."
quote:
The origin of death is exactly what we find them in. Sediment/water pressure deposition. Drown or smothered en mass.
Except for those that died under desert conditions, of course.
quote:
Just what creationism wants to find.
Yes, I think you only find what you want to find.
From anything I've read of where age/health can be determined it is a young/middle aged dino who died. if not then you could make the age/health of fossil dinos a point for your side. Yet you can't.
Oh yeah the dinos you say were found in the dunes. Well this would be rare and so the whole area of dunes and life would be overcome by sediment if this was the process. I suspect still a misinterpretation.of dunes as in reality collects of fine sediment or possibly collects of desert sediment/dunes by the water pressure mechanism. In any case you must accept the turning of sand into stone. This is not happening today. In order to do this you must have sediment, not more sand, covering the "dunes" to preserve and pressurize into stone. This process can be mimiced by the actios of the flood pushing sediment.
Its fine for us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Dinosaurs and the bible - 12/10/2008 9:31:21 AM
|
|
|
alex123
Posts: 58
Joined: 11/25/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
From anything I've read of where age/health can be determined it is a young/middle aged dino who died. if not then you could make the age/health of fossil dinos a point for your side. Yet you can't.
Translation?
quote:
Oh yeah the dinos you say were found in the dunes. Well this would be rare and so the whole area of dunes and life would be overcome by sediment if this was the process. I suspect still a misinterpretation.of dunes as in reality collects of fine sediment or possibly collects of desert sediment/dunes by the water pressure mechanism.
Aeolian sands are physically and chemically quite distinctive. There is no evidence that these desert sand sediments were water-borne in any way.
quote:
In any case you must accept the turning of sand into stone. This is not happening today. In order to do this you must have sediment, not more sand, covering the "dunes" to preserve and pressurize into stone.
That is basically right, but there is significant evidence that the sediments that overwhelmed the dinosaurs in this example are desert sands. Their subsequent burial by later sediments does not alter the evidence that these animals died on dry land and not in a flood.
quote:
This process can be mimiced by the actios of the flood pushing sediment.
Its fine for us.
No they can't and no it isn't. Water-borne sediment is quite distinctive.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
