Dinosaur Propaganda

Deacon,

Back to your topic ... there are "Creation Scientists" that use "junk science" (1) just as there are evolutionists that use "junk science". Unfortunately, neither kind does truth any justice.

No we shouldn't use junk science to support the Bible and Our Lord, the Creator.

(1) Borrowing a term from evolutionists ... we can change junk DNA to junk science ...

 

Dinosaurs and man were definately on the earth together - see my previous post in this thread where I quote from Job - Job was obviously familiar with dinosaurs.

We have with us today, the Komodo Dragon, a 3 metre long Monitor lizard which lives on the small Indonesian island of Komodo. Some friends of ours saw these on holiday a few years ago. They are truly fearsome creatures that have been known to attack children. In my opinion, these are "terrible lizards".

There are many other lizards alive today which may not be big enough or fearsome enough to be called "terrible lizards", but, they would seem to be of the same (biblical) "kind" as the dinosaurs, which, it would seem, largely died out after The Flood of Noah's time. There would have been breeding pairs of dinosaurs on the Ark, but, presumably, the post-Flood climate was not conducive to their continued existence, though I would not be surprised if there were creatures of this ilk alive today in remote, unexplored regions.

Genesis 1:25 (God's creation of various creatures "after their kind"),
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 7:12-16 (Noah, his family, and creatures going into the Ark),
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

In Christ,
PlainSense

 

Firstly, I have never claimed that the Bible says that the earth orbits the sun, so I am puzzled as to why this was asked of me.

As far as I am aware, the Bible does not say that the earth orbits the sun. Generally speaking, the Bible refers to the sun in the same way that I, and millions of other Westerners, commonly refer to it. I accept that the earth orbits the sun, yet I speak in terms of the sun "rising in the east and setting in the west".

Even the Lord Himself, who actually made all things, including the earth and the sun - John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" - refered to the sun in this way:

Matthew 5:45 "...your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good..."

Matthew 13:6 "And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away..."

The point I make, is that the fact that the Bible refers to the sun in this way is of no consequence whatsoever.

There is, however, a deeper reason why the Bible speaks like this. God created the earth on day one. Life requires light, and God said "Let there be light" also on day one (Genesis 1:1-5), but this was not the light of the sun. Notice that nowhere does it say that this first light was created. I imagine that this light was the presence of God Himself, since "God is light" (1 John 1:5). (Moses' face shone because he had been with God in the mount (Exodus 34:29)). The sun was not created until day four (Genesis 1:14-19).

God's attention is focussed on this earth. The sun, moon and stars were created for the express purpose of serving the earth, and serving mankind on the earth, hence the Bible refers to the sun as it is seen from the earth. I suggest that since we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), although now marred by sin, this is the reason why we, too, commonly think of the sun in the same way that it is referred to in the Bible:

Genesis 1:14-19.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

In Christ,
PlainSense

 

Morning PlainSense

Let me try to start working my way through your posts.

"Thanks for the tone of your last two replies."

Yes. Again sorry if you thought I was hostile towards you. I, too, much prefer conversation.

"Sorry, I have just come back to the question you asked, to quote it before my answer, and for some reason I had it in my mind that you had asked a "flat earth" question, so that is what I have "answered". I will have to look at the earth rotating around the sun question another day (It's great to have your beliefs challenged in a calm, measured debate like this, but I really must do some work - it's a good job I work for myself and write my own pay-cheque!) I hope you'll find this "flat earth" reply interesting anyway."

These things are always interesting.

Yes, my main question was about geocentrism though I think that I did mention a flat earth in passing somewhere. My opinion is that it is difficult to make a case for a flat earth from the Bible that is convincing but that it is even harded to make a convincing case for a spherical earth. I also think that it is hard to make a case for an earth that orbits the sun but is fairly easy to make a case for geocentrism.

You of course have Joshua where the sun stands still during the battle.

In Habakkuk 3:11 you have "The sun and moon stood still in their habitation..."

In Psalms 19 you have "In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them."

There are others to mention, but that is enough to get th idea. It is always the sun moving, the sun going to a place of hiding at night, the sun traveling in a "circuit."

"Firstly, it does not matter one iota what people in antiquity believed. For example, the fact that Daniel wrote things that he didn't understand (12:8), doesn't mean that what he wrote was not Divinely Inspired. It doesn't matter if Isaiah, or anyone else, believed that the earth was flat, round, triangular, or whatever shape. The important thing is what Scripture actually says, because if we believe that Scripture is infallible (and I do), then it must be seen to be correct in all things."

This is sort of my view on such things, but I do not know if we are coming to the same conclusion.

My view would be that the writers of the scriptures were inspired to write by God but not necessarily dictated to. If you take time to do a little digging, it is not too hard to find what the beliefs were about the world by the ancients living in the middle east. A quick search found this

http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/gier/306/commoncosmos.htm

though I did not read much of it. The picture at the top was what I was looking for.

Now, these people believed in a flat, circular earth, surrounded by a great ocean ("the deep"). The earth was covered by a fixed dome on which the star were attached and through which the sun moved. The dome separated the earth and the "deep" from the waters above the dome.

Now, I think you see these beliefs represented in the writings of the biblical authors. All the way back to Genesis you see mention of the firmament and the deep and the waters above and below. In various places you see mentions of the stars falling from the dome. You mentions of rain being caused by opening windows in the firmament. You see the tree in Daniel that grows so tall as to be seen in all the earth. (OK, it was dream.) Even in the Gospels you see Jesus being taken to a mountain tall enough to see all the kingdoms of the world.

Now I consider none of this to be mistakes. I just see this as their writings being colored by what they "knew," by their culture. The same thing would happen today if you or I were to become a writer in any context. What we believe would color our writings.

But the important part is the message being delievered. And it is perfect. Now my own personal view would be that the creation account falls into a similar vein. I think that the presentation of the creation account was meant to serve several purposes. One was to establish the one true God in a sea of polytheistic beliefs. Another was to establish God as the creator of all. Another was to show the sinful nature of man and his need for salvation while contrasting that with the perfect nature of God. One was to show that man is special and has a unique relationship with God. It sets up everything that follows. But just as God allowed some of their beliefs to color their writings I think that the creation account was not to be literal but to serve a purpose.

Admittedly, my views, too, are colored. I find that the evidence for an old earth and for evolution to be incontrovertible. Since the Bible will not disagree with reality, I find any interpretation that does not accept these facts as flawed by definition. It is just the way it is.

"Sorry UTEOTW, this sounds like a kop-out to me, where's the Scripture that tells us that "God used evolution"? I don't think there is any. "

I don't think there is any in a direct sense either. There may be hints. It does say to let the "earth bring forth" life. There may be other clues that it is not literal, not the least of which is a literal morning and evening for several days without a sun to give us a literal morning and evening. In addition, the creation account is repeated in chapter 2 with a different order. In a non-literal reading this is not a problem but it is a bit of a contradiction if this is meant to be a blow by blow account.

That is weak, I know. But the possibility exists. I firmly believe that the correct interpretation of the Bible and of the Creation will not conflict.

"but the Scriptures have been around in various forms for thousands of years. It sounds like you are implying that God allowed former generations to believe that He created everything in six literal twenty-four hour days, but that He actually has saved the "real truth" for 20th/21st century scientists!"

Depends on what you mean by truth and the intent of the verses. It would not be the first time that someone has reinterpreted scripture based on scientific findings.

"If this is what you mean it is a very arrogant and elitist stance."

Not arrogant. This is a search for the truth. I have two things which I am convinced are true. There must be a way to harmonize them.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "elitist" but I am not sure that it is always a bad thing. It may be a bit eliteist to only trust a doctor to diagnose my medical problems but there is a good reason for doing so. Some people just have more information about a given subject than we do. It is OK to listen to these people.

Well, that gets through the first post of yours. Off to work.

Ute

 

Good morning UTEOTW,

Thanks for your observations. Some interesting ideas there. I don't agree with everything you have said, but you know that already. I don't expect to be able to understand all of Scripture. There are certainly things in Scripture that I can't explain. You mention Habakkuk 3:11 - I haven't looked at this, but I believe the account in Joshua where the sun stands still to be literal. I have posted rather a lot over the last few days, so I will wait a while before presenting a case here, so that, if you want to, you have a chance to catch up on my other posts first.

PlainSense

 

UTEOTW,

I have started a >>>NEW TOPIC<<< to deal with this - an experiment that I thought would be interesting.

Yours in Christ,
PlainSense

 

I do not expect that we will agree, nor do I expect that all of my ideas are even correct. But the exchange of ideas between believers should be a good thing. Even if we do not agree, we can gain an understanding of why the other thinks as he does.

I would think that the Habakkuk verse is a reference back to Joshua. I agree that the story of the sun standing still in Joshua is a literal story but I also think that it illustrates my idea about their own knowledge coloring the writing.

I do not think that either of us have any doubt of what happened during the battle. But let's think about something. If the sun were to literally stop, what would happen? The sun's motion is mainly its orbital velocity about the center of the galaxy. Its movement through the sky is caused by the rotation of the earth. So if the sun were to literally stop, the effect would be minimal. Well at first at least.

So what really happened was that the earth stopped rotating leaving the sun to remain in one spot in the sky. If the scriptures were dictated by God AND if He were concerne with getting such sceintific details correct, the nit is a simple matter to have the human author write that the earth stopped spinnig causing the sun to linger in one place in the sky.

But this is not what we get. The author wrote what he believed to have happened. Since the people of the area and time believed that the sun travelled across the sky in the firament, then the sun was merely commanded to stop moving.

Now the sotry remains literally true. I would not even consider this a violation of inerrancy. But it does show that the writings reflect the prexisting beliefs of the people and that there was not concern paid to getting such physical details precise. The main bit is the act of God to help His people. And I think the same thought applies to the Creation. The account was not meant to be a literal history but to communicate the truth in a manner that the ancients could understand. The important thing is that God is the Creator, not how He did it.

I'll get back to your other posts as time allows. I did want to get in on your other thread.

 

UTEOTW

It would sound like you have become open to scientific method?

I agree with that statement.

 

I believe I outlined for you how evolution follows the scientific method.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2794/16.html#000228

You did not raise any objections. I assume that that means that you accept now that evolution really does follow the scientific method.

 

Hi UTEOTW,

Again, I don't agree with all you say here, but this is probably the closest we have come to agreeing on something. I, too, believe that what actually happened during Joshua's long day, was that the earth's axial rotation was interrupted. This, of course would have drastic consequences, and I think we see just a little bit of those consequences in Joshua 10:11 where, we are told that the Lord rained upon the Amorites "great stones from heaven", causing mass Amorite death. Possibly this was a meteorite shower?

To be honest, this is not my theory, I "borrowed" it from an unpublished work of one of my authors, which goes into great depth on things like Joshua's long day and other phenomenan that we read of in the OT (such as Amos 1:1 where an earthquake is mentioned and used as a means of Amos dating his book). There is a lot of other evidence and theories presented, some of which seems credible to me, and some of which seems just a little far-fetched (though who am I to judge?). I think this was probably written as a dissertation for one of his theological qualifications. I have not been asked to publish this (I am currently publishing another book for him) - he passed me a copy of this because he knew of my interest in such things, and because my own book on Revelation entertains similar theories, but in relation to the end-times.

I found his explanations and theories concerning Joshua's long day etc. to be absolutely fascinating, and I wondered whether to seek his permission to post a link to this chapter in his dissertation.

1. I need his permission for copyright reasons.

2. It is far too long to just copy and paste it in (roughly 20 - 30 pages).

I have to contact him soon on another matter so I think I'll ask his permission to do this.

Yours in Christ,
PlainSense

 

UTEOTW

I did not go so far that I should have been misconstrued ...

Yes many evolutionists claim scientfic method.

But, you do not use scientfic method.

In Christ.

 

Then explain in which way I do not. What is the reasoning behind your assertion.

"Yes many evolutionists claim scientfic method. "

But what do YOU think? You sound as if you allow that they claim it but you personally doubt it. So do you accept that the scientists involved in biology and paleontology and geology and astronomy and other related disciplines do actually use the scientific method or do you claim that they do not? If you answer in the negative, please explain yourself with specific examples and reasoning on why, in your opinion, they do not do so.

 

Deacon,

Great observation:

"Miracles cannot happen. (naturalism---contrasted to theistic science that allows the supernatural)."

 

But, they will check the paper to make certain their stars in proper alignment ... In a perfect world all scientists would be Creationists ...

mmm ...

Is that one of the reasons we will call it heaven?

 

I do not think that I ever got to your last post on page 3 and I had promised to try and respond.

I'm glad it is a short one.

"There are many other lizards alive today which may not be big enough or fearsome enough to be called "terrible lizards", but, they would seem to be of the same (biblical) "kind" as the dinosaurs, which, it would seem, largely died out after The Flood of Noah's time."

Not if you get into a detailed look at their anatomy. There is quite a bit of variation within the reptiles. Not knowing this, it can be hard to spot the flaws when someone tells you things like the larger quote of yours above.

Dinosaurs were part of a group of reptiles known as archosaurs. I am going to quote a few of the differences here. There are many others.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archosauria.html

The only archosaurs left alive today are the crocodilians and the birds. That the birds are archosaurs is a part of the twin nested heirarchy of life that makes the most sense only in the light of common descent.

 

I think you have answered your own question here. I'm not sure about birds (not for any scientific reason), but, given your words above, presumably you accept that crocodiles are dinosaurs that we have with us today?

 

Not exactly.

Crocodiles are sisters to the dinosaurs. An analogy might be that crocodiles and dinosaurs as part of the reptiles are like rodents and primates as part of mammals. They are related, but they are not the same thing.