[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Ted Logan

What dinosaurs are you thinking of?

Well, In Jordan, Sauropods have been discovered. (last I heard what species had yet to be determined.) That fits nicely the description of a behemoth. Mosasaur have been found there as well. A giant pouncing, snakelike creature like that really fits my ideal of what could have been the Leviathan of the ANE. I am not saying it is leviathan, but that it presents a very real possibility of what we might see in Job.

I'm sorry; I meant to say that Adam clearly was created as a mature being capable of fully responsible moral choices, but this fact only suggests the possibility that the world might have been created in a similar state. I wasn't trying to doubt the maturity of Adam.

I was a little perplexed, because everyone assumes God made man mature, whom I have met. I think the world, like Adam requires a little bit of process to be habitable. I would say the existence of the 4 rivers of Eden point to at least a little bit of maturation going on, as with trees and what not.

All true. This tempers my statements a bit, though it could take us back to what the "days" of creation are instead. It just seems to be more in the realm of speculation than necessary inference.

I think you need a little bit for Adam to get food, rivers to flow, etc.

I do not buy into a really long days of creation though. It seems that if you are going figurative, that is unnecessarily literal, and if you are going literal, it does not make good sense to me otherwise.

Literal, or literary, or both I have no issues with, but when people go to day-age it perplexes me.

[Jeffrey]

Doesn't Genesis 2 (but not Genesis 1) indicate that Adam and then the Garden of Eden were created "when no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up?"

This seems to indicate that the only vegetation was in the Garden of Eden. Of course, Genesis 1 if taken literally claims that "the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good" and then follows it up with "And there was evening and there was morning, the third day."

So from a literal perspective on things, God created plants which were brought forth (Hebrew scholars: can this mean something other than appeared or sprouted?) before the close of the third day. It's not until the sixth day that God creates humanity. Male & female He created them, so a literal reading says the creation of both Adam and Eve occurred on the same day: "Man gave name to all the animals" (Dylan song with a gorgeously haunting ending) BEFORE Eve was created but on the same day (the sixth).

Unless there's a special Hebrew concept that's translated as "brought forth" but doesn't mean the same thing (and if so, the literal creationists should be lobbying for a better translation), Genesis 1 seems to indicate plants first, then man. Genesis 2 seems to indicate man first (even the Garden is planted after man is formed), then plants.

Why is this? Genuine question. I don't have any sneaky traps to snap down on literal creationists or Hebrew scholars. I'm genuinely curious.

[DropKick74]

WOW! I left this for a day and i never expected so much feedback. I thank you all for your various points and arguments. It gives me a lot to think about. I'll admit that before this paper I've never given creationism or evolution much thought until now. I always accepted that we are here now and I still Love God for everything he created. Even when i thought of it, I always wanted to take the side that the scientific views can somehow completely coincide with God's creation. All in all we just don't know and I accept that. However because my paper is a one on one debate of a subject, I have to lay those views down for the time being and at least point out the flaws of the accepted theories of evolution ( when i say this, I mean the stuff that is taught in school now and the information which that is based off of.) So once again I thank you for every reply. Also, can you guys please give me some more stuff to read on this subject such as websites or documentaries. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject but my teacher does not allow me to cite blogs as reliable sources. Sorry Thanks guys and keep it up. You've already helped me make my paper way better. Maybe if I feel up to the criticism, I'll post the paper on this thread when I'm done. But you have to be nice LOL

[Ted Logan]

DropKick, you might want to try articles in scholarly journals, if your school has access to online journal archives like JSTOR or ATLA. Ask someone in the library; they should be able to help. This sort of thing will give you tons of scholarly treatments that are briefer than books but will give you lots of information.

For instance, I just searched ATLA's database of scholarly articles on religious studies, and found 114 articles under the subject "Intelligent Design" that had links to online, full-text versions of the articles. Some would probably be useless, but you're bound to find a dozen or more that will really help your research, and that was just one search. The hard part about using databases like these is that you don't always know what to search for. JSTOR brought back 6500 articles when I looked for "intelligent design" in the full-text, but most of them were not related to the debate we're talking about.

If you don't have access to article databases, you might have to break down and buy a few books on the subject.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by DropKick74

WOW! I left this for a day and i never expected so much feedback. I thank you all for your various points and arguments. It gives me a lot to think about. I'll admit that before this paper I've never given creationism or evolution much thought until now. I always accepted that we are here now and I still Love God for everything he created. Even when i thought of it, I always wanted to take the side that the scientific views can somehow completely coincide with God's creation. All in all we just don't know and I accept that. However because my paper is a one on one debate of a subject, I have to lay those views down for the time being and at least point out the flaws of the accepted theories of evolution ( when i say this, I mean the stuff that is taught in school now and the information which that is based off of.) So once again I thank you for every reply. Also, can you guys please give me some more stuff to read on this subject such as websites or documentaries. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject but my teacher does not allow me to cite blogs as reliable sources. Sorry Thanks guys and keep it up. You've already helped me make my paper way better. Maybe if I feel up to the criticism, I'll post the paper on this thread when I'm done. But you have to be nice LOL

Go to church for a day, practice for a christimas cantata and see a thread grow to 2 pages!!

First an excellent source (though some would disagree) is ICR.org. They are strong young earth creation scientists with masters and doctorates in numerous disc9plines of study. They have many excellent free downloadable aplogetics for Y/E creation.

Int he minds of men by Ian Taylor is an excellent reference tool to scientifically debunk alot of evolutions claims.

Dinos for the most part went extinct due to the flood. Noah took some on board the ark, but a good working theory is that because of their size and food demands they died out inthe new world post flood with its limited vegetation.

Cavemen could simply have been the remnants of the first sttlers in an area after the dispersion at Babel. Neanderthal is no Homo Sapien and in the 70's a group from John Hopkins went to Europe and discovered tha Neanderthal gotr his unique features due to rickets and scurvy- which will cause the supra orbital of the eye, and the elongated skull crest and the hunching.

The earth is between 6-10K years despite the supposed radio decay dating methods. There is a free download at ICR that was a multi year multi million dollare research project known as RATE that shows that radio decay is subject to great variation (meaning it is not constant) and how a rock formation with a known young date can measure in the billions of years in age.

[Ted Logan]

Dropkick, nolidad represents a school of thought on the subject that sounds more like what you address in your original question than what we've been giving you, so if you want to argue for dinosaurs dying in the flood or a young earth, maybe his resources (icr.org and the book by Ian Taylor) would be worth a look. However, just remember that there are Christians out there who believe in the authority, integrity, and inerrancy of the Scriptures who nevertheless disagree with nolidad on some of these things. For example, notice the speculation that is required. Where does the Bible mention anything about dinosaurs on the ark? If they're just big lizards (as BSPE said), why bring them at all? Why not just bring geckos or a couple monitors instead? After all, Genesis 6 says that two of every sort came into the ark. It does not tell us what is meant by "sort," neither should we claim that God was talking about our modern notion of "species" (which would be anachronism).

[nolidad]

Do you believe God made the earth old, was time different for him. Since he was before time and space. Time is relative to space did that affect how long 7 "days" really was.

No God made the earth and then it was! Dating methods are fatally flawed for reason that are too long to get into but only linked to.

As for mircro-evolution, as Preston said, that is just variation within a kind. So isn't speciation- it is just simply varuiation within a biblical "kind". When all is said and done- all that has been observed and proven on micro evolution is you have a varinat of a mouse, a virus, a bacteria, a bird etc. etc. etc.

Macroevolution vis a vis a fish changing to a lizard changing to a bird as the story goes has never been observed, nor demonstrated nor proven by fossil finds. Macroevolution is simply just a non theistic interpretaton (now with a theistic variation- OMG it evolved ) of the remains fossilized from the flood.

Originally Posted by TedLogan

However, just remember that there are Christians out there who believe in the authority, integrity, and inerrancy of the Scriptures who nevertheless disagree with nolidad on some of these things. For example, notice the speculation that is required. Where does the Bible mention anything about dinosaurs on the ark? If they're just big lizards (as BSPE said), why bring them at all? Why not just bring geckos or a couple monitors instead? After all, Genesis 6 says that two of every sort came into the ark. It does not tell us what is meant by "sort," neither should we claim that God was talking about our modern notion of "species" (which would be anachronism).

TEd you are correct without a doubt. Both modles of origins require a lot of speculating for the simple fact that we were not there and in the cases where we (meaning man) was there like at the flood- they used language far different form ours. With that said teh biblical model (taken as literal history) is far more harmonious with the evidenc around the globe that we fdo see. A biblical kind would more likely relate to our classification of genus rqather than species.

As for the inhabitants of the ark- it was more than likely that all the "animals" were immature animals. That way when they left teh ark and dispersed they would regenerate for a much longer period. What kindo of dinosaurs were on board teh ark- we don't know.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Macroevolution vis a vis a fish changing to a lizard changing to a bird as the story goes has never been observed, nor demonstrated nor proven by fossil finds. Macroevolution is simply just a non theistic interpretaton (now with a theistic variation- OMG it evolved ) of the remains fossilized from the flood.

Speciation has been observed both with and without human interference. The story you mention about "fish changing to a lizard changing to a bird" (though I don't think that's actually how it goes, but I get your point) has not been directly observed but has been interpolated.

@ Dropkick: Unlike nolidad I do not think the science that is popular with some young earth creationists is compelling. I think the "modern evolutionary synthesis" is the best science can do at the moment. That does not mean it is necessary (not even close) to accept the modern scientific consensus as being 100% truth . There are even examples within the history of scientific progress. For instance take Galileo's Sidereus Nuncius which clashed not only with the church but with prevailing scientific belief:

"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism." - Paul Feyerabend

Nevertheless, Galileo was correct: the earth orbits the sun.

[Rainer.]

To the OP, DropKick74:

My personal recc. for this subject is that you try to make a more focused dissertation. Just saying Creation and Evolution is going to be a HUGE subject, as your rather long list of questions in the first place suggests. You're needing to write a "one on one" exposition, but you've unfortunately chosen a subject that has hundreds of different faces on each side. Perhaps you might want to take just one of those questions you asked (or make another more specific question) to research.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by nolidad

No God made the earth and then it was! Dating methods are fatally flawed for reason that are too long to get into but only linked to.

This is the perfect place to get into them.

As for mircro-evolution, as Preston said, that is just variation within a kind. So isn't speciation- it is just simply varuiation within a biblical "kind". When all is said and done- all that has been observed and proven on micro evolution is you have a varinat of a mouse, a virus, a bacteria, a bird etc. etc. etc.

We need to define terms; we need Popper's falsification.

What evidence would you need, Nolidad, to accept that a species has branched off and a new species was arisen? Either you have a standard, so that we can judge if we're all in the same parameters of discourse, or you don't, meaning this discourse is impossible (because there is no means by which you could concede).

Macroevolution vis a vis a fish changing to a lizard changing to a bird as the story goes has never been observed, nor demonstrated nor proven by fossil finds.

Ah! Now I can see the problem. You have gravely misunderstood how the story goes.

As for the inhabitants of the ark- it was more than likely that all the "animals" were immature animals. That way when they left teh ark and dispersed they would regenerate for a much longer period. What kindo of dinosaurs were on board teh ark- we don't know.

But, wait...the Bible never explicitly says "only take the young." It gives Noah MANY specific instructions, but for some reason God forgot to inspire the writer to include that detail?

You can believe this, Nolidad, but you are adding to Scripture.

Also, what does "regenerate for a much longer period" mean? I think you're mixing up terms.

[nolidad]

Speciation has been observed both with and without human interference. The story you mention about "fish changing to a lizard changing to a bird" (though I don't think that's actually how it goes, but I get your point) has not been directly observed but has been interpolated.

Well I don't know if interpolated is the word you want to use

Definition
interpolate verb
/ɪnˈtɜː.pə.leɪt//-ˈtɝː-/ v [T] formal • to add words to a text
• to interrupt someone by saying something

interpreted I think is far better. I will defend an evololutionists right to believe in "macro" evolution though it is scientifically wrong. Speciation is a phenomena that both models of origins would be able to predict. But seeing one kind change to another is osmething that while looks feasible on papaer (after all as they say it is just changing DNA sequences and on papaer that is easy to do) But in the real world that has yet to be even remotely achieved. God placed a restriction on the populating of biblical "kinds" they were stick with each other and that is what we see in the real world. Even the engine of evolution--mutation has shown to be an engine with no gas when it comes to demonstration in the real world.

REmember speciation is just simply variation within a kind. A mouse species may have developed new characteristics (ability to alter diet or vartiants in color or even minor morphological alterations) butr inteh end it remains a mouse.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well I don't know if interpolated is the word you want to use

Heh, thanks for the advice but you may want to get a more comprehensive dictionary there, bud. I was using it to mean: to insert between other things or parts i.e. as a synonym of intercalate (to insert between or among existing elements or layers). The fossil record is a fragmented picture to say the least. For instance there are so-called "missing links" which are interpolated by scientists until an appropriate specimen is discovered.

I will defend an evololutionists right to believe in "macro" evolution though it is scientifically wrong.

I'm sure they appreciate that (very American of you) but my point was merely to point out that the larger scientific community does not make such a distinction.

REmember speciation is just simply variation within a kind.

"Kind" is such vague terminology that I remain unconvinced of it's taxonomic usefulness. By and large it appears to be contrived to take advantage of the "species problem" to say, "look, speciation hasn't actually occurred, it's just a different type of kind." Not that it's particularly important to this thread but it seems like word games to me.

[nolidad]

I'm sure they appreciate that (very American of you) but my point was merely to point out that the larger scientific community does not make such a distinction.

Isn't it of me though? I agree. I think the entire evolutionist community does not do micro/macro evolution. They call it all evolution.

Heh, thanks for the advice but you may want to get a more comprehensive dictionary there, bud. I was using it to mean: to insert between other things or parts i.e. as a synonym of intercalate (to insert between or among existing elements or layers). The fossil record is a fragmented picture to say the least. For instance there are so-called "missing links" which are interpolated by scientists until an appropriate specimen is discovered.

Ok my bad. If you ask Jerry Love- He will tell you I am a missing link between ape and man!

Its true about inserting fossills and forming a chain. But if you really look at where the gaps lie, they are at the area where the major major change has to take place. If you want we can post those gaps. I think you know them anyway.

"Kind" is such vague terminology that I remain unconvinced of it's taxonomic usefulness. By and large it appears to be contrived to take advantage of the "species problem" to say, "look, speciation hasn't actually occurred, it's just a different type of kind." Not that it's particularly important to this thread but it seems like word games to me.

Well I was duly chastised by several atheistic evolutionists for using species as it is so vague. and in flux now. Speciation does occur. you tak a bulldog(species) and a shitzu(species) coross brees them and you get a ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺zu (a new species) That is speciation because they are still both dogs.

Jeffrey wrote:

What evidence would you need, Nolidad, to accept that a species has branched off and a new species was arisen? Either you have a standard, so that we can judge if we're all in the same parameters of discourse, or you don't, meaning this discourse is impossible (because there is no means by which you could concede).

Well give me your definition of species so we are speaking the same thing and we will use that and go from there.

But, wait...the Bible never explicitly says "only take the young." It gives Noah MANY specific instructions, but for some reason God forgot to inspire the writer to include that detail?

You can believe this, Nolidad, but you are adding to Scripture.

If I tried to make it scripture yes I would- but it is only a possibilty, not an absolute. Noah could have taken full adults as well, I am just going with a common sense theory. It makes no difference either way.

Also, what does "regenerate for a much longer period" mean? I think you're mixing up terms.

Your right I meant reproduce.... Writing before I go to work can be an adventure in luncay at times.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Doesn't Genesis 2 (but not Genesis 1) indicate that Adam and then the Garden of Eden were created "when no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up?"

Meredith Kline somewhat infamously argued that as this was "because it had not rained" it implied that God's method of creation was largely immanent: Get the pieces together and set them in motion in order to "create" (e.g., make plants grow by sun, water, and soil). Other interpretations have varied as widely as to say that "bush of the field" and "small plant of the field" were specific types of plants that had yet to grow; after all, Gen 1 was careful to specify different types of plants.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Meredith Kline somewhat infamously argued that as this was "because it had not rained" it implied that God's method of creation was largely immanent: Get the pieces together and set them in motion in order to "create" (e.g., make plants grow by sun, water, and soil). Other interpretations have varied as widely as to say that "bush of the field" and "small plant of the field" were specific types of plants that had yet to grow; after all, Gen 1 was careful to specify different types of plants.

Many commentators have concluded that this also is a rehearsing of Genesis 1 as told to Adam by God before He created the plant world in 1:10-12