Posted on 07/20/2007 12:30:45 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
UC Berkeley scientists, digging deep into a remote New Mexico hillside, have discovered a trove of fossil bones that they say is evidence that dinosaurs and their early relatives lived side by side for tens of millions of years before the relatives slowly died off and left the dinosaurs to dominate the ancient world.
Until now many scientists had thought that dinosaur "precursors" -- perhaps their ancestors -- disappeared suddenly long before the dinosaurs themselves rose to prominence, but the bones dug up by Berkeley paleontologists show evidence of a different story.
The discovery of a wide variety of creatures all mingled together in layer upon layer of rocks dating from Earth's late Triassic period between 235 million and 200 million years ago, they say, shows that the strange relatives of the dinosaurs remained on the scene while the dinosaurs evolved into truly dominant creatures during the Jurassic period, between 120 million and 200 million years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I do not know him. I am not RC.
So its true, Rush Limbaugh’s radio program existed at the same time as Old Media Network news at the dawn of the new media...
(/s)
What? No Hellen Thomas pic?
Pass the bananas, please.
You can believe whatever you want to believe, but the evidence is there.
If God wants me to know what happen prior to written history as far as an exact time line goes he will let me know after the White Throne Judgment.
And that's ok, but many of us want to use our God-given intellects to examine the universe around us. After all, can you really appreciate God's creation if you can't understand its majesty? As far as I'm concerned, to look at the elegant genius of evolution is to get a glimpse of the divine. You're more than welcome to disagree - again, that's your perogative.
Isn't that a Danish saying? Something's rotten in the state of the educational system.
"Monkey worshiper" is one of the favorite epithets of creationists on FR for people who believe in evolution and a 4 billion year old Earth.
I do agree that atheism is a religion because. That's why I don't call myself one. I don't know either way if there is a God, but if there is, I doubt he takes an interest in my day to day life. If he is taking an interest in my life, I wish he would stop and spend more time with the poor, sick, and oppressed. If he solves those problems, then maybe he can take up an interest in the details of my everyday existence, of which most are completely inconsequential when compared to the troubles of a starving kid in India or a soldier in Iraq.
You're absolutely correct. However, the Bible also says that the hills are "ancient." See here for a more detailed explanation. There is nothing in Genesis to indicate that the universe is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. It's a man-made construct and we can be better witnesses to the world by getting rid of this medieval belief. The Bible does not contradict science. All truth is God's truth.
Exactly. The Bible that I use the most devotes a whopping 2 pages to the creation story. Not only that, the creation story is mostly about WHO created the universe, not HOW or WHEN. If God had wanted us to know more of these details, including the age of the universe, He would have included it in the Bible. It is obviously not an important issue to God, so why should it be an important issue to use?
If the Biblical timeline of history is to believed (with Noah’s Ark through the line of Patriarchs and Adam’s lineage, then the earth does have to be somewhere along the lines of no more than 10,000 years old. Yet I agree with you that The Bible doesnt contradict science (afterall God created the world, including nature, and all natural laws).
The question is what consists of “science” I contend speculation does not, only provable emprical evidence, which (in my opinion does not include “macro-evolution”).
Blessings,
-JS.
Yikes! This is the kind of quote that liberal whack-jobs like the DUmmies like to highlight, to make the claim that conservatives (as represented by posters on this site) are a bunch of loons that do not believe in scientific evidence.
Our good creationist brethren really need to stop taking the current English translation of the Bible so literally, particularly the very oldest parts in the beginning of Genesis. Keep in mind that your English bible has undergone many language translations and rewrites over millenia.
Take particular note of the potential Hebrew definitions of a "day" as noted in this link . Per original semantics prior to English translations, a "day" can also be interpreted as a "time period", meaning Earth's creation over a period of "7 days" could very well translate into any period you like (e.g. billions of years). This supports both scientific evidence of God's work, while NOT contradicting what is written in the Bible.
Remember, God created EVERYTHING, including time & space. Also keep in mind the theory of relativity (invented by God BTW :), and its meaning relative to time. What time frame, relative to Earth, is Heaven in? Given that God created the entire universe, it seems pretty arrogant to think He measures time by a "day" as defined by the orbital rotation of our single planet.
YEC INTREP
While we're at it...
There is no Biblical authority for the date of Jesus' birth. I submit that his birth is relatively unimportant, as all me are born. What is important isn't that he died on the cross either (stay with me!), as all men die.
What he did is come back of his own accord, THAT is unique. THAT is THE defining moment of Christianity. Even his Disciples doubted until they knew he had risen.
And that is also an event that the Bible precisely dates!
There's where our calendar should start, with the day of resurrection, not with something so common as a birth, but with a singular rebirth.
Extra bonus points:
That means this isn't the 2007th Year of Redemption.
And that means we haven't yet reached the True Millennium, either...
I believe in the Biblical timeline of history. However, I do not believe in the interpretation by some that the Bible says that the universe is something less than 10,000 years. Hebrew allows for the meaning of a "day" to be anywhere from just the daylight hours to an unspecified amount of time (see here for more involved explanations. Once one recognizes that fact, any supposed conflict with science goes away. Think of it as you would the English word "time." Time can mean exactly 3 PM, or the time of the Roman Empire, or every moment that has happened since creation. Same word, different meanings, depending upon the context.
Back in my day a day was 24 hours...
That's the funniest post I've seen in weeks. Thanks!
re post 59: darn right!! God can and will do whatever God pleases, whether or not we agree with it, or like it, or want it...
Thank you. Yours was the best set-up I’ve seen in months!
And his legs have nothing to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.