Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

Smithsonian Magazine ^ | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields

[Kozak]

You lose. Darwin does not contradict Genesis.

[ahayes]

Obsolete Source Placemarker

[js1138]

I am being sarcastic, of course. It is absurd to believe the creator of the universe goes in for genocide.

But that does not stop people from accusing God of genocide, nor does it stop people from claiming God ordered them to commit genocide.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Placemarker

[2nsdammit]

Absurd indeed. Yet it has not stopped some on these threads from saying something similar; i.e. that Hitler was acting on God's behalf in punishing the Jews....

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I've read some interpretations that claim that dinosaurs, and other prehistoric life may have been around in this first sentence in Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Day one starts after this creation. I guess the thought is that since dinos aren't relative to the purpose of the Bible, why mention them. Anyhow, I suppose that God would have chosen to start over with what we know of as creation following that. I can't say that this is my belief, but I suppose it's a possibility.

[2nsdammit]

"Well, isn't that con-veeen-yent!"

[mlc9852]

Oh, sorry. I thought Darwin believed humans descended from somethong other than other humans. My mistake.

[mlc9852]

I suppose there are all sorts of possibilities. But I have to rely on what the Bible actually says.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Wow! That's pretty cool!
These threads have been very interesting to me. The only conclusion I've been able to draw though is that I don't know how He did it, just that He did. I can see how many of the possible beliefs of the manner of creation can be correct when I read Genesis. Sometimes I think that God might rather us just accept that He did it,and not bicker over the manner, especially when it leads to ill representation of Him. One thing is constant though, no matter the interpretation, you always get back to a few fundamentals, like energy of life, how matter originated, who set the physical laws that govern? There is something deep inside, that screams to me, God did it! It's like it's built into my being. Which goes right along with Romans 1:20. I LOVE IT! It's so awe inspiring! I just get amazed when I contemplate His power at that level,. Wow!

[Conservative Texan Mom]

This is an excerpt from an article that was posted a few months ago. It's quite interesting as it deals with the Hebrew text.

What is a "day?"
Let's jump back to the Six Days of Genesis. First of all, we now know that when the Biblical calendar says 5700-plus years, we must add to that "plus six days."
A few years ago, I acquired a dinosaur fossil that was dated (by two radioactive decay chains) as 150 million years old. My 7-year-old daughter says, "Abba! Dinosaurs? How can there be dinosaurs 150 million years ago, when my Bible teacher says the world isn't even 6000 years old?" So I told her to look in Psalms 90:4. There, you'll find something quite amazing. King David says, "One thousand years in Your (God's) sight are like a day that passes, a watch in the night." Perhaps time is different from the perspective of King David, than it is from the perspective of the Creator. Perhaps time is different.
The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2), in trying to understand the subtleties of Torah, analyzes the word "choshech." When the word "choshech" appears in Genesis 1:2, the Talmud explains that it means black fire, black energy, a kind of energy that is so powerful you can't even see it. Two verses later, in Genesis 1:4, the Talmud explains that the same word -- "choshech" -- means darkness, i.e. the absence of light.
Other words as well are not to be understood by their common definitions. For example, "mayim" typically means water. But Maimonides says that in the original statements of creation, the word "mayim" may also mean the building blocks of the universe.
Another example is Genesis 1:5, which says, "There is evening and morning, Day One." That is the first time that a day is quantified: evening and morning. Nachmanides discusses the meaning of evening and morning. Does it mean sunset and sunrise? It would certainly seem to.
But Nachmanides points out a problem with that. The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? There is a purpose for the sun appearing only on Day Four, so that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text.
Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" -- but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet -- the root of "erev" -- is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" -- "boker" -- is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously and remains orderly. Order always degrades to chaos unless the environment recognizes the order and locks it in to preserve it. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.
The Torah wants us to be amazed by this flow, starting from a chaotic plasma and ending up with a symphony of life. Day-by-day the world progresses to higher and higher levels. Order out of disorder. It's pure thermodynamics. And it's stated in terminology of 3000 years ago.

The creation of time.
Each day of creation is numbered. Yet there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: "There is evening and morning, Day One." But the second day doesn't say "evening and morning, Day Two." Rather, it says "evening and morning, a second day." And the Torah continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations make the mistake of writing "a first day." That's because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! Because there is a qualitative difference, as Nachmanides says, between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative.

[2nsdammit]

"That means that one tiny atom in my fingernail could be. . . could be one little, tiny universe.... Could I buy some pot from you?

[Conservative Texan Mom]

I want to Thank you for wording your post so pleasantly. It makes others so much more receptive when their defenses aren't thrown up in the first sentence. respect is usually repaid with respect, and that goes a long way.

I believe that faith is an important factor when it comes to Genesis. It's very difficult to resist the urge to shove a personal view onto another, especially if they aren't ready for it. I think we need to trust that God will reveal things to us as our faith grows. What is better is to plant seeds, and allow God to do the rest. If someone is receptive to you because you are a respectful person, then they are far more willing to listen to your ideas. Once the seed is planted, they may choose to contemplate these ideas, and the watering begins. God will provide the fertilizer through experiences, revelation, and relationships. Who knows when an opportunity to participate as fertilizer will come along. We need to be willing, nurturing, and loving, or else we might unintentionally plow up the seed instead.

I know, silly analogy, but I think it makes sense!

[2nsdammit]

"Who knows when an opportunity to participate as fertilizer will come along."

That is a far more apt analogy than you might realize.....

[music_code]

Because "common design" and "common ancestry" produce *very* different types of characteristic similarities *and* differences.

You speak as though you can say, with authority, that you have observed examples of both "common design" and "common ancestry" and therefore can accurately distinguish between the two.

But, that is begging the question. How can you know (when you study and observe a given set of organic beings) that you are looking at an example of common ancestry as opposed to an example of common design?

You have already ruled out "common design" (because it doesn't fit your evolutionary preconceptions). In your view, common design simply never occurs because you have already decided beforehand that no Designer exists. That only leaves the other option (the only one you will accept) which is common ancestry. So I guess no matter what species we are talking about or looking at, we all know that we shall see the idea of common ancestry "proved".

[Conservative Texan Mom]

To me, Genesis makes complete sense as an outline of creation. It is still true, just not detailed. Perhaps this was for a purpose, as creation is not the focus of the Bible, or why it was written. Prophecy about Christ begins in Genesis Ch. 3. That's pretty much right after God tells us He mad us. The Bible is a plan of salvation, and not an instruction manual for creation. It should be enough for Christians to know He did it. If the "how" was relevant to salvation, I think the "how" would be more detailed. Instead, the Bible reiterates through out, not the "how he did", but that He "did".

[Elsie]

Neither one is me.

[js1138]

But, that is begging the question. How can you know (when you study and observe a given set of organic beings) that you are looking at an example of common ancestry as opposed to an example of common design?

A. It is impossible to say that something is designed without knowing something of the attributes, motives and methods of the designer. Forensic investigation cannot proceed without knowing how the presumed actor behaves, and what it limitations are.

B. We know from observation that natural selection is capable of bringing about speciation and diversity.

[Elsie]

Which is you and which is the ape?

Gee...

If I guess wrong, you will have made a monkey out of me!

[Elsie]

Why is it so difficult to understand that when you spread out small, incremental steps over a very long period of time, large changes can occur?

For the same reason that Brownian motion never gets you anywhere.