dinosaurs and the flood

hurricanehattie · 23rd August 2009, 09:29 PM

Hi
Our bible talk tonight was entitled dinosaurs and the flood.
What thoughts do members have about dinosaurs and how they fit them into the creation timescale?
Would just be interested to hear what you guys think.
Cheers HH

David · 23rd August 2009, 10:18 PM

I don't know. Dating of fossils relys on geological strata aor radioactive decay, both of which assume all things have continued from the beginning. Personally I'm not convinced that they died out in the flood, but have no better explanation.

D

glimmer · 23rd August 2009, 11:10 PM

They lived millions of years before man. They helped Noah build the ark (pitch/tar), they help us with our cars (oil).

**dkiversen** · 23rd August 2009, 11:48 PM

Dr Thomas' position was to place dinosaurs in a pre-Adamic creation. Christadelphians traditionally were old-earthers. It's only fairly recently that some have taken up a young earth position.

Recently it's been recognised that birds are examples of therapod dinosaurs. The moa was a 3 meter high flightless bird / therapod dinosaur in New Zealand that was last sighted in 1947. The Madagascan Elephant Bird, also at around 3 metres, became extinct around 1000 AD.

I think that the description of Behemoth in Job fits a dinosaur much better than a crocodile.

gaz · 24th August 2009, 12:06 AM

Several options really...

1. Literal 7 day creation, dinosaurs were created on days 5 and/or 6 and lived alongside man but have since become extinct.
Evidence - Well a lot of cultures have dragons and they must have got the idea from something in the past!

2. Literal 7 day creation, but the earth itself isn't included in any of those days, therefore we can't rule out the possibility of a previous creation on this planet which may have included dinosaurs. John Thomas hints at this in some of his writings, but obviously it's pure speculation.
Evidence - nothing except speculation.

3. Non-literal 7 day creation, symbolism only. Evolution happened and dinosaurs fit in x million yrs ago.
Evidence - Atheistic scientists say so.

Whenever I ponder I always come back to 1 simply because 2 doesn't seem to make sense and 3 leaves you to be questioned by both 7 day creationists and atheists. Having said that, I have no real problem with any of the choices, there are much more important things we should be dogmatic on.

glimmer · 24th August 2009, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaz

Several options really...

1. Literal 7 day creation, dinosaurs were created on days 5 and/or 6 and lived alongside man but have since become extinct.
Evidence - Well a lot of cultures have dragons and they must have got the idea from something in the past!

2. Literal 7 day creation, but the earth itself isn't included in any of those days, therefore we can't rule out the possibility of a previous creation on this planet which may have included dinosaurs. John Thomas hints at this in some of his writings, but obviously it's pure speculation.
Evidence - nothing except speculation.

3. Non-literal 7 day creation, symbolism only. Evolution happened and dinosaurs fit in x million yrs ago.
Evidence - Atheistic scientists say so.

Whenever I ponder I always come back to 1 simply because 2 doesn't seem to make sense and 3 leaves you to be questioned by both 7 day creationists and atheists. Having said that, I have no real problem with any of the choices, there are much more important things we should be dogmatic on.

You forgot one VERY important opinion...

4 - Day/Age progressive creationism - The "days" in genesis are "ages" of time and not literal 24 hrs (to God a "day" is as a thousand years etc.). God creates something new on/in each day/age. This is what I believe to be true.

ps - I think this thread should be moved. What does it have to do with "publications"?

David · 24th August 2009, 06:30 AM

I think perhaps we come to an interesting point, what is Genesis 1 actually saying. First it is very limited on the how, God said and it was done, God breathed and man became alive, not real detail or explantion why. God could have given it all in intricate detail, but it would not be understood even now.

So a simple account free of hyperbolae, which was understandable and gave lessons to everyone in all the ages of man, even today.

We ask questions about detail which the bible refuses to give. so what is it trying to teach? That God made therefore we have a responsibility to God, and God made things good to reflect his glory.

The limitations of the the account are important for clarity and preservation.

In many ways though my personal point is I am on the side of Bro Thomas.

D

**dkiversen** · 22nd September 2009, 11:14 PM

To show the range of views within Christadelphia - I currently favour the idea that the creation narrative is a seven day vision to Adam.

Obviously the narrative has to be a revelation, as people aren't created until near the end of the process. I also find the structure of the account interesting with 3 days of making followed by 3 days of filling:

Day 1: Day and Night / Day 4: Sun, Moon and stars
Day 2: Sea, atmosphere and clouds / Day 5: Fish and birds
Day 3: Dry land and vegetation / Day 6: Animals and man

I currently see this structure as indicating a poetic revelation rather than a literal account.

SedesGobhani · 20th March 2010, 05:02 AM

Quote:

1. Literal 7 day creation, dinosaurs were created on days 5 and/or 6 and lived alongside man but have since become extinct.

2. Literal 7 day creation, but the earth itself isn't included in any of those days, therefore we can't rule out the possibility of a previous creation on this planet which may have included dinosaurs.

3. Non-literal 7 day creation, symbolism only. Evolution happened and dinosaurs fit in x million yrs ago.

4 - Day/Age progressive creationism - The "days" in genesis are "ages" of time and not literal 24 hrs (to God a "day" is as a thousand years etc.). God creates something new on/in each day/age.

This is one of those kinds of subjects that you want to leave open ended a bit, put all the possibilities out there and decide which one you like best, but don't get dogmatic about, because you might decide later you like another one better.

For example I used to lean toward opinion #2 (OEC - Old Earth Creationist), but now recently have switched back to the literal opinion #1 (YEC). To me, #3 & #4 were never attractive. I can't fault others who believe that, but the views seem to conflict with too many other facts (at least for me, because I understand the reason other people don't like #1 or #2, is that they conflict with too many facts for them).

moorea944 · 23rd March 2010, 12:54 AM

If it were a thousand years for each day of creation, the seventh day would have been a thousand years too. But didnt Adam live only 930? Im also trying to figure in other ages of the scriptures too. I'm trying to figure out the logic on that. I'm not saying your wrong at all. Just trying to figure it out if the world really IS millions of years old. Good topic though.

glimmer · 23rd March 2010, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moorea944

If it were a thousand years for each day of creation, the seventh day would have been a thousand years too. But didnt Adam live only 930?

A day is "AS" a thousand years, not - a day "IS" a thousand years.
So in the day/age theory a "day" could be a million years, because it's really an unspecified amount of time.

David · 27th March 2010, 06:53 PM

Gen1v2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So the deep and the Earth was there before the first day, but it gives no idea how long or short it was.

Gen1 is not a scientific document, and is not intended to be, but it does tell the truth that we all depend upon GOd and have responsibilities towards him. This is the problem of evolution as it seeks to take God out of the picture and see our coming into being as the result of many chemical reactions, without need of external interference.

Which doesn't actually support any of the followingyoung earth old earth, or theistic evolution, literalist or symbollic, but to point out that Gen1 teaches us that God should be the centre of our life.

d

SedesGobhani · 18th April 2010, 10:17 PM

Quote:

So the deep and the Earth was there before the first day, but it gives no idea how long or short it was.

There was an excellent study day in Lompoc, CA USA with very interesting material given by Bro Ron Kidd. A couple of classes he gave made me dismiss my previous old earth leanings. I could go on and on about the holes he punched through other theories. I can send audio of the two most interesting mp3 files for anyone interested.

There is also a lot of interesting stuff here: creationevidence.org

I believe the earth was not there before the first day. I feel the material from Bro Kidd has blessed me to be able with good conscience to believe those verses which tell of a 6 day creation, and recognize that many of my previous misgivings were due to too must trust in men (ie. "scientists").

Gen 2: 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

SedesGobhani · 20th April 2010, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SedesGobhani

There was an excellent study day in Lompoc, CA USA with very interesting material given by Bro Ron Kidd. A couple of classes he gave made me dismiss my previous old earth leanings. I could go on and on about the holes he punched through other theories. I can send audio of the two most interesting mp3 files for anyone interested.

There is also a lot of interesting stuff here: creationevidence.org

I believe the earth was not there before the first day. I feel the material from Bro Kidd has blessed me to be able with good conscience to believe those verses which tell of a 6 day creation, and recognize that many of my previous misgivings were due to too must trust in men (ie. "scientists").

Gen 2: 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Ex 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Here is another interesting source of information.
http://www.drdino.com/article-categories.php

(I don't buy into their doctrines but they have good materials when it comes to creation that may as well be useful).

steveyb3 · 20th April 2010, 09:24 AM

Hello,

I am a Young Earth Creationist based on Scripture.

However, there is oodles of psedo-science promoted to get this view across. It is scientifically wrong and intellectually dishonest. One such promoter is "Dr" Kent Hovind who ran the website you gave a link for. He was a conman who is now currently in jail for tax evasion. I've watched a lot of his debates- he's very entertaining and a good debater- but even YECs say his science is utterly wrong. I strongly advise to stay away from his science at all costs.

gaz · 20th April 2010, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveyb3

Hello,

I am a Young Earth Creationist based on Scripture.

However, there is oodles of psedo-science promoted to get this view across. It is scientifically wrong and intellectually dishonest. One such promoter is "Dr" Kent Hovind who ran the website you gave a link for. He was a conman who is now currently in jail for tax evasion. I've watched a lot of his debates- he's very entertaining and a good debater- but even YECs say his science is utterly wrong. I strongly advise to stay away from his science at all costs.

Yeh, I totally understand where you're coming from - that links with this thread discussed a few months back. Young earth/non-evolution Christians are desperate to tag onto any sort of "evidence" to back up Biblical ideas and unfortuntely some of the material used in support of these ideas is very flaky indeed. As I said in the other thread, I'm not comfortable discussing these sorts of things with scientists, particularly neo-Atheist types such as Richard Dawkins who actively seek arguments with those who disagree with them and are very good orators indeed.

Peter · 21st April 2010, 09:10 AM

One interesting point of note is that almost all dinosaur findings of note have ben at the "ends of the earth" far from Mesopotamia -the location of the first human civilizations.

SedesGobhani · 22nd April 2010, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter

One interesting point of note is that almost all dinosaur findings of note have ben at the "ends of the earth" far from Mesopotamia -the location of the first human civilizations.

Yes but what can we infer from that? Dinosaurs didn't like to live around people?

SedesGobhani · 22nd April 2010, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveyb3

Hello,

I am a Young Earth Creationist based on Scripture.

However, there is oodles of psedo-science promoted to get this view across. It is scientifically wrong and intellectually dishonest. One such promoter is "Dr" Kent Hovind who ran the website you gave a link for. He was a conman who is now currently in jail for tax evasion. I've watched a lot of his debates- he's very entertaining and a good debater- but even YECs say his science is utterly wrong. I strongly advise to stay away from his science at all costs.

Thanks for the tip. Are you saying that Dr Dino's facts are made up?

steveyb3 · 22nd April 2010, 09:32 AM

No prob.

Yes most of his stuff is awful science which no one goes along with. There are countless youtube videos de-bunking his stuff. It's a shame because he's an excellent debater, a fierce defender of Creation and attacker of Evolution but if he's doing it based on lies and tax evasion then he can't be trusted.

21st April 2010, 09:10 AM	#17
Peter Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Ecclesia: Cumberland, Colonel Light Gardens, South Australia Country: Australia Posts: 319	Dinosaur Fossils One interesting point of note is that almost all dinosaur findings of note have ben at the "ends of the earth" far from Mesopotamia -the location of the first human civilizations.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

23rd August 2009, 09:29 PM	#1
hurricanehattie Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Ecclesia: newquay cornwall Country: uk Posts: 50	dinosaurs and the flood Hi Our bible talk tonight was entitled dinosaurs and the flood. What thoughts do members have about dinosaurs and how they fit them into the creation timescale? Would just be interested to hear what you guys think. Cheers HH

23rd August 2009, 10:18 PM	#2
David Member Join Date: May 2009 Ecclesia: Ashby Country: U.K Posts: 403	I don't know. Dating of fossils relys on geological strata aor radioactive decay, both of which assume all things have continued from the beginning. Personally I'm not convinced that they died out in the flood, but have no better explanation. D

23rd August 2009, 11:10 PM	#3
glimmer Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Ecclesia: Echo Lake, New Jersey Country: USA Posts: 788	They lived millions of years before man. They helped Noah build the ark (pitch/tar), they help us with our cars (oil).

23rd August 2009, 11:48 PM	#4
dkiversen Extra Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Ecclesia: Kettering Country: UK Posts: 235	Dr Thomas' position was to place dinosaurs in a pre-Adamic creation. Christadelphians traditionally were old-earthers. It's only fairly recently that some have taken up a young earth position. Recently it's been recognised that birds are examples of therapod dinosaurs. The moa was a 3 meter high flightless bird / therapod dinosaur in New Zealand that was last sighted in 1947. The Madagascan Elephant Bird, also at around 3 metres, became extinct around 1000 AD. I think that the description of Behemoth in Job fits a dinosaur much better than a crocodile.

24th August 2009, 12:06 AM	#5
gaz Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Ecclesia: Glasgow South Country: UK Posts: 198	Several options really... 1. Literal 7 day creation, dinosaurs were created on days 5 and/or 6 and lived alongside man but have since become extinct. Evidence - Well a lot of cultures have dragons and they must have got the idea from something in the past! 2. Literal 7 day creation, but the earth itself isn't included in any of those days, therefore we can't rule out the possibility of a previous creation on this planet which may have included dinosaurs. John Thomas hints at this in some of his writings, but obviously it's pure speculation. Evidence - nothing except speculation. 3. Non-literal 7 day creation, symbolism only. Evolution happened and dinosaurs fit in x million yrs ago. Evidence - Atheistic scientists say so. Whenever I ponder I always come back to 1 simply because 2 doesn't seem to make sense and 3 leaves you to be questioned by both 7 day creationists and atheists. Having said that, I have no real problem with any of the choices, there are much more important things we should be dogmatic on.

24th August 2009, 06:30 AM	#7
David Member Join Date: May 2009 Ecclesia: Ashby Country: U.K Posts: 403	I think perhaps we come to an interesting point, what is Genesis 1 actually saying. First it is very limited on the how, God said and it was done, God breathed and man became alive, not real detail or explantion why. God could have given it all in intricate detail, but it would not be understood even now. So a simple account free of hyperbolae, which was understandable and gave lessons to everyone in all the ages of man, even today. We ask questions about detail which the bible refuses to give. so what is it trying to teach? That God made therefore we have a responsibility to God, and God made things good to reflect his glory. The limitations of the the account are important for clarity and preservation. In many ways though my personal point is I am on the side of Bro Thomas. D

22nd September 2009, 11:14 PM	#8
dkiversen Extra Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Ecclesia: Kettering Country: UK Posts: 235	To show the range of views within Christadelphia - I currently favour the idea that the creation narrative is a seven day vision to Adam. Obviously the narrative has to be a revelation, as people aren't created until near the end of the process. I also find the structure of the account interesting with 3 days of making followed by 3 days of filling: Day 1: Day and Night / Day 4: Sun, Moon and stars Day 2: Sea, atmosphere and clouds / Day 5: Fish and birds Day 3: Dry land and vegetation / Day 6: Animals and man I currently see this structure as indicating a poetic revelation rather than a literal account.

23rd March 2010, 12:54 AM	#10
moorea944 Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 99	If it were a thousand years for each day of creation, the seventh day would have been a thousand years too. But didnt Adam live only 930? Im also trying to figure in other ages of the scriptures too. I'm trying to figure out the logic on that. I'm not saying your wrong at all. Just trying to figure it out if the world really IS millions of years old. Good topic though.

27th March 2010, 06:53 PM	#12
David Member Join Date: May 2009 Ecclesia: Ashby Country: U.K Posts: 403	Gen1v2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. So the deep and the Earth was there before the first day, but it gives no idea how long or short it was. Gen1 is not a scientific document, and is not intended to be, but it does tell the truth that we all depend upon GOd and have responsibilities towards him. This is the problem of evolution as it seeks to take God out of the picture and see our coming into being as the result of many chemical reactions, without need of external interference. Which doesn't actually support any of the followingyoung earth old earth, or theistic evolution, literalist or symbollic, but to point out that Gen1 teaches us that God should be the centre of our life. d

20th April 2010, 09:24 AM	#15
steveyb3 Member Join Date: May 2009 Country: England Posts: 157	Hello, I am a Young Earth Creationist based on Scripture. However, there is oodles of psedo-science promoted to get this view across. It is scientifically wrong and intellectually dishonest. One such promoter is "Dr" Kent Hovind who ran the website you gave a link for. He was a conman who is now currently in jail for tax evasion. I've watched a lot of his debates- he's very entertaining and a good debater- but even YECs say his science is utterly wrong. I strongly advise to stay away from his science at all costs.

22nd April 2010, 09:32 AM	#20
steveyb3 Member Join Date: May 2009 Country: England Posts: 157	No prob. Yes most of his stuff is awful science which no one goes along with. There are countless youtube videos de-bunking his stuff. It's a shame because he's an excellent debater, a fierce defender of Creation and attacker of Evolution but if he's doing it based on lies and tax evasion then he can't be trusted.