Creation and Dinosaurs - Page 2

[Kidzaplenty]

:

[fruitfulmomma]

How would the already maxed over capacity ark house dinosaurs? I don't think that is even physically possible, not to mention the impossibilities of feeding them.

This paper does a good job of explaining that.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-flood-and-ark

We are talking about a boat that was large enough to hold over 500 train cars and there is no reason to believe the animals taken on board were full-grown.

[holyhelianthus]

Thanks to the PPs for linking to info on dinos living w/humans, on the ark, etc. Interesting! Not exactly what I believe but very interesting none the less.

Originally Posted by AngelBee

Also.....there seems to be extremists in both sides that bother me.

Yup!

[jennica]

Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma

This paper does a good job of explaining that.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-flood-and-ark

We are talking about a boat that was large enough to hold over 500 train cars and there is no reason to believe the animals taken on board were full-grown.

If their were only the mere amount of "kinds" of animals on the ark, instead of all of the species we have today, then there was obviously some really super rapid evolution that happened after the ark landed. More rapid then anything that the theory of evolution would ever support.

[jennica]

Originally Posted by Whispers

- the animals on the ark including dino's were babies

Even if the dino's were babies, they wouldn't fit. Do you realize how many species there are and how large some of them are? And, I mean, the T-rex's alone would have eaten Noah - baby or not. Also, if the other animals on the ark were babies, that presents all kinds of problems. Baby mammals would require more care from Noah and his family then adult mammals would. They would have to be fed milk (and where would this come from?), they would have to be held and cuddled and played with. There were 8 people on the ark caring for thousands and thousands of animals? And they were all babies which would require more work to care for? If all those people were doing was shoveling poop off the decks they would not have been able to physically keep up - let alone actually feeding the animals or themselves. In modern zoos, there are only a few hundred animals, and there are countless zoo employees and volunteers to care for them. It would have been simply impossible for 8 people to prepare food for, feed, and clean up after thousands of animals. Even if we go with the really low numbers of unspecified "kinds" (which would require extremely rapid evolution upon the ark landing), 8 people would never be able to keep up just with the animals aboard. And if we are adding dinosaurs to the mix, well, it was already an impossibility, so that just makes it seem not even like a legitimate theory.

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by jennica

If their were only the mere amount of "kinds" of animals on the ark, instead of all of the species we have today, then there was obviously some really super rapid evolution that happened after the ark landed. More rapid then anything that the theory of evolution would ever support.

This brings up a question in my mind- is evolution out period? Do Creationists believe that evolution is a possibility ever? Sorry for my ignorance

[fruitfulmomma]

This brings up a question in my mind- is evolution out period? Do Creationists believe that evolution is a possibility ever? Sorry for my ignorance

We believe in micro-evolution or adaptation, changes within the kind. We don't believe one species can change into a whole different species.

[Jennifer Z]

For me, evolution and Christianity don't conflict at all because of how I view the bible. I don't think all parts of the bible were meant to be taken literally, including the creation story. (Much of the early new testament is more literal though). There are many different genres/writing forms represented in the bible, and the various creation accounts given in the bible, even though they conflict if you take them literally, have no problems being side by side if you understand the genres they are written in.

This leaves no problem following the scientific theories of the creation of the earth/universe, nor any conflicts with evolution. I still believe God created everything, and science doesn't stand in contrast to it, just explains it.

So, what I would do is find curriculm that explains the science, and do a seperate study of biblical literary forms. The bible is, IMO, accurate and truthful, but you have to understand how to find the truth in poetic and other abstract forms to understand what is being said. I take the bible very seriously, but not literally.

The science I am looking at right now (can't buy beause dh is unemployed and we are a few steps beyond broke right now) is this: http://www.pandiapress.com/real_science.htm

A good book that discusses genres is this (it is the updated version of the college textbook I had in an introductory class): http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-...4492011&sr=8-1

I purposly avoid any curriculm that includes the creation story as literal facts because, IMO, you have to twist the science to make that work, and I can't trust what is in the book if they do that.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

I would look into anything by Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. Also, Lee Strobel has a great book called "The Case for the Creator" which is very science heavy, but a great read if you can follow it!

If their were only the mere amount of "kinds" of animals on the ark, instead of all of the species we have today, then there was obviously some really super rapid evolution that happened after the ark landed. More rapid then anything that the theory of evolution would ever support.

You are comparing two different kinds of evolution here - micro and macro. Micro evolution can happen on an extremely rapid basis and there is no changing from one species to another. The theory of evolution cannot support this rapid of change because it is explaining evolving from one species into a completely new species.

There are many different genres/writing forms represented in the bible, and the various creation accounts given in the bible, even though they conflict if you take them literally, have no problems being side by side if you understand the genres they are written in.

I'm curious what genre you see Genesis as being written in, what evidence there is for saying it is written in that genre, and how one can decide with any given book of the Bible what genre it is written in. (Not trying to attack, just genuinely curious)

This brings up a question in my mind- is evolution out period? Do Creationists believe that evolution is a possibility ever?

For some yes, for some no. Personally, it's not a possibility in my mind.

[Delicateflower]

Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma

This paper does a good job of explaining that.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-flood-and-ark

We are talking about a boat that was large enough to hold over 500 train cars and there is no reason to believe the animals taken on board were full-grown.

A lower than conservative guess is that there were 1500 genera http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsci...were_there.php

gives you three genera per train car. Six dinosaurs. That's assuming you have rapid evolution after the flood and before fossilisation to account for the multiple species per genus.

And then you have to fit the non-dino extant and extinct animals in as well, somewhere.

[Delicateflower]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

You are comparing two different kinds of evolution here - micro and macro. Micro evolution can happen on an extremely rapid basis and there is no changing from one species to another. The theory of evolution cannot support this rapid of change because it is explaining evolving from one species into a completely new species.

Evie'smama, there is only one 'kind' of evolution. It's called evolution. Change in gene frequency in a population through time.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

Evie'smama, there is only one 'kind' of evolution. It's called evolution. Change in gene frequency in a population through time.

No, there are two. I understand that both kinds are a result of changes in the genome, but there is a distinct difference between those changes resulting in a new species and those that result in the existing species having a different appearance.

[genifer]

Where do they fit in?

And the Ice Age?

lol. I dunno. I do NoT believe genesis events of creation need to be taken completely literally. Or maybe 'literally' isnt what I mean. I think its more of a case of not having all the details. I think the point of the Bible's creation stories are about God's interaction and role in creation and humanity, Sort of explaining God's role in it all and our place in the grand scheme of things. To explain, generally speaking, that 'Yeah, there is a God and He is the one who did all this stuff and even if I tried to explain things to you the way *I* (God) did it all, it'd blow your head off, K?' But within the very simple rendition of what happened, the 'in a nutshell' sort of thing, the long and short of it... there is so much depth and spiritual... revelation. If you study it and can appreciate it like that. I recognise that some, most (??) just dont ...arent into that sort of thing.

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

3) Each "day" of Creation isnt' a "day" the way we know it. I mean, how can there be a "day' before the sun and moon were created? You can phrase this idea in many ways- "Who knows how long days were then", or "Each day of creation wasn't really a 24 hour day, but rather an epoch, or a phase in the development of the world."

Wouldn't that seem a little ... I don't know, incongruous? Taking the creation story pretty much as at-face-value literal, but then throwing the choice of a word that has nothing to do with the actual meaning of that word into the mix?

ETA: I guess what my real question is, is the word that is translated into "day" used in a similarly flexible way elsewhere?

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma

We believe in micro-evolution or adaptation, changes within the kind. We don't believe one species can change into a whole different species.

Hmm, what is a species, in this context?

[Delicateflower]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

No, there are two. I understand that both kinds are a result of changes in the genome, but there is a distinct difference between those changes resulting in a new species and those that result in the existing species having a different appearance.

No, no, there's just the one. Well, in science anyway. Is this a religious doctrine you're describing which has two types of evolution?

There is no qualitative difference or distinction between changes which allow interbreeding and those which don't.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

I'm curious what genre you see Genesis as being written in, what evidence there is for saying it is written in that genre, and how one can decide with any given book of the Bible what genre it is written in. (Not trying to attack, just genuinely curious)

This wasn't addressed to me, but it pretty much reflects what I think, so I'll give it a go.

Sometimes genres in this sense are quite obvious, for example, parables. They aren't meant to be taken as historical narrative. Historical narrative is another genre. There is poetry, like the psalms or Song of Solomon. The book of Revelation is also a particular genre - apocalyptic literature - which can be found outside the Bible, and which was quite a popular way of writing at one time. Epistolary writing is another. All of these genres have certain characteristics that identify them as belonging to that type of writing. In an epistle, we expect to see a salutation, it's very often written in the first person, it is often ascribed to a particular writer.

Genesis is what is often described as "myth" although it is a difficult word, because it has connotations in everyday language that don't actually apply to it here - we think of it as being a made up story to explain something. In this context, it actually makes no claims about the stories "truth" at all. Rather, it simply means that the account might not be totally literal, a blow by blow description. (Often, myths also have their exact origins lost in time, they weren't made up by an individual, and were often passed down orally.)

There are a number of markers that philologists find in myths, though they are not as obvious as those in an epistle. Certain types of phrases, tenses, and details of language choice. An example of such a marker is the two parallel accounts of creation found in Genesis - that kind of thing is quite common in that genre. It's something that you could look more into, but it does tend to be quite technical, and dry.

The other way to consider what kind of genre parts of the Bible are is to look at how they have been understood historically. Genesis has often been considered a non-literal description of creation by both early Christians and Jews, before the Christian era. Many also thought it was literal - the point is that no one thought that all scripture had to be historical narrative to be true, or the word of God.

I'm not sure that a detailed description of how hydrogen particles were impacted in the Big Bang and eventually became all the elements and other things we see today, for example, would be a very useful thing to find in the Genisis account. It would certainly distract from the point of the story, which seems to be about how creation is related to God.

[kittywitty]

Originally Posted by Liquesce

Wouldn't that seem a little ... I don't know, incongruous? Taking the creation story pretty much as at-face-value literal, but then throwing the choice of a word that has nothing to do with the actual meaning of that word into the mix?

Well, it depends if you take the bible telling you to sell your daughter into slavery literally, too.

Or

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

or

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

Is it all or nothing? Should all things be taken literally if one thing like the meaning of "day" should?

http://www.godshew.org/Allegory.htm

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by Liquesce

Wouldn't that seem a little ... I don't know, incongruous? Taking the creation story pretty much as at-face-value literal, but then throwing the choice of a word that has nothing to do with the actual meaning of that word into the mix?

ETA: I guess what my real question is, is the word that is translated into "day" used in a similarly flexible way elsewhere?

The difference is that "day" is used from the Creator's perspective in the case of the creation story.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

I guess what my real question is, is the word that is translated into "day" used in a similarly flexible way elsewhere?

The word day is used flexibly, but there are tell-tale markers that are used along with the word day to let the reader know whether or not a literal day is being referred to.

Marker 1 - if the word day is used along with a number
Marker 2 - if the word day is used along with the word morning
Marker 3 - if the word day is used along with the word evening

Every time the word day is used in a literal sense in the Old Testement it accompanies one of these markers.

In the Creation narrative all three markers are used: "There was evening, there was morning, the first day."

And to return to the two kinds of evolution, let me try to explain it this way.

Each species has a specified number of chromosomes that make up it's unique genome. Each of these chromosomes has its own functions and there are certain chromosomes within that genome that vary among a species to create the unique characteristics that differ within the species. For instance, two dogs can look quite different, but they have the same number of chromosomes that have the same jobs. Yet, within those chromosomes there are slight variations that lead the animals to look quite different. In order for that species to have micro-evolution, only minor variations are made within the chromosomes. No new chromosomes are added or taken away and each rung on the ladder so to speak still has its same purpose.

In macro evolution we are not talking about slight variations among the amino acids of chromosomes. Macro evolution involves adding or subtracting chromosomes and changing their basic functions in order to make a totally new species with different defining characteristics.

The two really cannot be lumped together as they involve entirely different biological processes.