Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaurs, early relatives coexisted
sfgate.com ^ | Friday, July 20, 2007 | David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor

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 ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: crevo; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-324 next last
To: Nathan Zachary

I suppose remains of earlier humans that are different than us isn’t proof.


261 posted on 07/21/2007 11:35:04 PM PDT by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LowOiL

“I believe in God forever way beyond the making of time (beyond yours and my grasp of reality) and He gave us what we needed to know. I know God placed “stumbling blocks” for those like you, and for a reason the path is narrow the way I go and wide the way you go.”
______________

God placed more than one “stumbling block” for us. One is called “logic” and another is called “reason.” God defies us to believe in him, by giving us knowledge of how the real world contradicts the bible, and awareness of the many contradictions within the bible. As you say, God does not want us to think too hard about these things, but rather leaves open a very “narrow gate” for those few who can set aside their reason and common sense. We must be vigilant to suppress any thoughts of how illogical it is to believe in God. That’s how best to worship. Just stop thinking.


262 posted on 07/21/2007 11:44:12 PM PDT by BuckeyeForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
It has been proven over and over again balistically that the craters could only have been created by objects origionating from earth.

I have never seen or heard of this claim before reading this thread. I am 100% certain that it's untrue. The moon is 250,000 miles from Earth. There are thousands of asteroids, comets, and meteors roaming around space that smash into things. They smashed into the moon numerous times.

263 posted on 07/21/2007 11:54:37 PM PDT by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; ejonesie22
I don't feel there should be any dispute between science and Christians concerning the age of the earth. Genesis tells us the story and earth is not 6,000 or 9,000 years old.

From a previous post:

I believe Genesis tells us that the earth is millions or billions of years old but that this age started about 14,000 years ago.

Gen.1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
It didn't say when that was, just "in the begining".

1:2 (first 1/2) And the earth "was" without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The word "was" was mistranslated and should be "became" - the earth became without form and void.

1:2 (last 1/2) And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That was the beginning of the first day of this age. Then factor in that 1,000 years is as one day to God (2 Peter 3:8). So, the first 7,000 years went by, Adam was formed in the 8th. There were 4,000 years from Adam to Christ and then 2,000 years since His crucifixion = 14,000 years since the beginning of this age.

God doesn't tell us how old the earth is but He does tell us it is not 6,000 years old.

264 posted on 07/22/2007 5:20:32 AM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong

I don’t think it’s meaningful to attempt to use the Bible to determine the age of the earth. None of the authors of it were anywhere close to being eyewitnesses, and even if you believe that every word is literal and dictated by God, we don’t have a single original manuscript.

There is no reason why the age of the earth should be a doctrinal matter. If time is endless to God, whether the world is 6,000 years old, 14,000 years old, or 4.6 billion years old, means nothing.

Science does mean something. It shows that there is order in the universe and those laws can’t be violated. Those laws are not subject to amendment by man. You can believe, as I do, that those laws were made by the Creator, or you can believe that they are some false religion to justify atheism or to disprove the Bible.

Science tells us that this world is far older than 14,000 years old, and to believe otherwise requires a belief that God created evidence to mislead us. The fossil record is clear, the radioactive decay of sedimentary rocks is clear, and the geologic column is clear.

You can either believe what can be empirically examined, or you can believe that a hand me down manuscript from nomads is literally true, every word of it.

I prefer to believe what I see, and am willing to accept that some scripture is allegory. It shouldn’t be a doctrinal matter.


265 posted on 07/22/2007 7:59:29 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Science tells us that this world is far older than 14,000 years old, and to believe otherwise requires a belief that God created evidence to mislead us.

I agree with that completely. I didn't say this world is 14,000 years old but that it is millions or billions, as the fossil records tell us. I did say that this age is 14,000 years old - there was an age before and will be another age after this one.

To me it is an important distinction to understand the truth of Genesis as many discount God Himself because they don't believe the validity of the Bible.

266 posted on 07/22/2007 8:15:22 AM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong
The word "was" was mistranslated and should be "became" - the earth became without form and void.

Here is Strong's definition for the word in question:

[1961] hayah haw-yaw

a primitive root (compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):— beacon, X altogether, be(- come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use. [see HEBREW for 01933]

The inference of a transition from one state to another is not inherent in the definition. You could translate it that way, depending upon context, but it is not a necessity.

The word was is simply commenting on the the state of existence [of the earth] at a given point in time.

Now, getting back to context....if you interpret the first line of Genesis as itself, an act of creation, then a translation of the word form one state to another certainly would make sense, however, given the whole of Genesis one, such an interpretation (of the first line being an act of creation itself) simply doesn't make sense. There is no indication that "the heaven," or the universe itself, was also recreated, and that is exactly how you would have to interpret it if you concede that the first line is itself an act of creation, separate from the days of creation that follow.

In short, to sustain your argument, you would have God creating the heaven and earth in the first line of Genesis, and then again in the "days" that follow, but without an indication of a transition for the heaven, that there is for the earth, in line two of Genesis. In fact, in the very line that you claim such a transition should be translated for the earth (verse 2) it is clear that the universe was without form or substance itself, i.e., and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

I've said this before (many times) and I'll say it again. I'm not opposed to arguments such as yours in principle. I just find that they have no merit when taking the whole of Genesis into consideration, and they definitely break down upon further inspection.

267 posted on 07/22/2007 2:26:35 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong
Gen.1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. It didn't say when that was, just "in the begining".

The first line of Genesis is simply an introduction, a general overview, if you will, of who, what, and when...not in that particular order of course. It is not itself an act of creation.

The second line of Genesis tells us the relative state of this creation, which is essentially non existent for both the earth and the universe.

The third line of Genesis chronicles, and details, the [actual] act of creation itself.

It's that simple

268 posted on 07/22/2007 2:50:05 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: csense; Diego1618
You could translate it that way, depending upon context, but it is not a necessity.

To me, the context necessitates that definition. "The Hebrew word "was" can be translated "became" and most modern Bibles now footnote it as became." (Diego1618)

There is no indication that "the heaven," or the universe itself, was also recreated, and that is exactly how you would have to interpret it if you concede that the first line is itself an act of creation, separate from the days of creation that follow.

There are a number of reasons why I do believe it speaks of a "recreation". One of those is that it states:

Gen.1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Heaven is given as singular but when you go to 2:1 it is now referred to as the "heavens". There is only one heaven and one earth so this must be two ages of heaven and earth, two beginings.

In short, to sustain your argument, you would have God creating the heaven and earth in the first line of Genesis, and then again in the "days" that follow, but without an indication of a transition for the heaven, that there is for the earth, in line two of Genesis

I'm not certain I understand. There was also a transition in heaven as there was no light on earth, the sun, moon and stars were not presented until day four.

I just find that they have no merit when taking the whole of Genesis into consideration, and they definitely break down upon further inspection.

I believe not only all of Genesis but other Books tell us the more complete story:

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water (6) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished: (7) but the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Peter is speaking about the first age as our present world did not perish in Noah's flood nor did his flood destroy the heaven age of our time.

Another scripture about that first age is Jeremiah 4:

22.For My people is foolish, they have not known Me; they are sottish children and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
23. I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was (became) without form, and void; and the heavens and they had no light.

It became without form and void. God created it to be inhabited but it became void. (Isa.45:18) For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.

24.I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25.I beheld, and lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled

This is not Noah's flood as here there was no man - no Noah and none of his birds.

26.I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger.
There were cites in that first age.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.......Not "plenish" but replenish earth.

There are other places that tell of or hint at that first age but one of my favorites is the following:

"This is not scripture, but the 'Book of Jasher' is quoted twice in the Old Testament, Joshua 10:13 & 2 Samuel 1:18. Some credence, therefore....should probably be given to this:" Jasher, speaking of the creation (Jasher was the son of Caleb....a contemporary of Moses), says in 1:4-5, "And the abyss fled before the face of the light, and divided Between the light and the darkness. So that the face of nature was formed a second time." - (Diego1618)

269 posted on 07/22/2007 5:10:03 PM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong
I'll have to check these verses you presented for context, but in a nutshell, your argument rests on "heaven" and "heavens" being two different things, which, I see no indication that they are. "Heavens," as plural, actually makes no sense.

To me, it's just a minor shift in vernacular that mean the same thing, and there is certainly nothing in the text that would relegate them as being distinct, aside from any given need or desire of the individual interpreter.

"The heaven" and "the heavens" are all inclusive and most likely synonymous. You may disagree however, which I'm sure you do....

270 posted on 07/22/2007 5:47:49 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Ping-Pong
Tell you what....show me a reasonably clear indication of transition for the universe itself in Genesis, as with the word “became” for the the earth, and you’ll have my ear....
271 posted on 07/22/2007 5:54:38 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: csense
but in a nutshell, your argument rests on "heaven" and "heavens" being two different things, which, I see no indication that they are. "Heavens," as plural, actually makes no sense.

I don't believe my argument rests on that at all. It is one small part of the puzzle I see and my argument rests mainly on the scriptures given. If the "heavens" don't make sense to you just leave it out and consider what is contained in the scriptures.

I do believe though that heavens, as plural, would make sense if you considered them as two ages. The first heaven and earth age, the 2nd age which we are now in and of course there will be a third.

Thank you for taking time to consider what I've written and not dismissing it out of hand.

272 posted on 07/22/2007 6:05:00 PM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: my_pointy_head_is_sharp

democRats are becoming parasites.
Republicans are becoming their hosts.


273 posted on 07/22/2007 6:07:48 PM PDT by gitmo (From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: csense
Tell you what....show me a reasonably clear indication of transition for the universe itself in Genesis, as with the word “became” for the the earth, and you’ll have my ear....

I don't know if I can or if there is a "clear indication of transition for the universe". I can add part of an article by E.W. Bullinger about the first age when Satan was overthrown: "The disruption of the world" is an event forming a great dividing line in the dispensations of the ages. In Gen.1:1 we have the founding of the world (Heb.1:10 themelios), but in Gen.1:2 we have it's overthrow.

Ample New Testament testimony is thus given to the profoundly significant fact recorded in Gen. 1:2 that the earth became tohu and bohu (ie. Waste and desolate): and darkness was on the face of the deep", before the creation of "the heavens and the earth which are now" (2 Peter 3:7)

I don't know if that helps or not. I hope it does.....Ping

274 posted on 07/22/2007 6:25:09 PM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: csense
....show me a reasonably clear indication of transition for the universe itself in Genesis

In thinking about this wouldn't the scripture already quoted, from Jeremiah 4:23, reference the universe being in transition?

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was (became) without form, and void; and the heavens and they had no light.

It isn't from Genesis but it speaks about the universe being disrupted. It was set right again on the fourth day, in Gen. 1:15-19.

275 posted on 07/22/2007 7:06:20 PM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: my_pointy_head_is_sharp

Why should God be made to punch a clock?


276 posted on 07/22/2007 7:15:09 PM PDT by jmcenanly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LowOiL
Are you saying a God that created everything could not make light in flight?

You know, that kind of silliness gives Christians a bad name.

Sure, God could have created light in flight. Maybe dinosaurs never existed -- God put fake bones in the ground. Maybe God created the earth 15 minutes ago and I'm the only inhabitant -- everyone I see is a figment of my imagination and the memories I have are phony ones put there by God.

Did you not see my link to the meaning of the Hebrew word for day? I have the blessing to have been close friends to a number of Orthodox Jews during my life. You know what? None of them believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Why? Because they understand Hebrew.

God gave you a brain and he's given us plenty of evidence about how old the universe is. Use your brain for God's glory, not as a stunbling block for others.


277 posted on 07/22/2007 7:46:21 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: LowOiL
I know God placed "stumbling blocks" for those like you, and for a reason the path is narrow the way I go and wide the way you go.

God did not place stumbling blocks in creaion. He said that the heavens declare his glory. The heavens declare that the universe began some 12 to 15 billion years ago. The heavens do not declare lies but rather declare reality.

I feel bad for saying this because I know that you mean well, but your theology is as bad as your science.


278 posted on 07/22/2007 7:51:50 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: csense; Ping-Pong
Show me a reasonably clear indication of transition for the universe itself in Genesis, as with the word “became” for the the earth, and you’ll have my ear....

[Genesis 1:2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The first "was" is this: Strong's #1961. hayah (haw-yaw)to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)

The second "was" is in Italics in the KJV and is included to make the verse more readable in English. The Hebrew word "Hayah" is not present in the original language here. "Hayah" is translated as "It shall come to pass" in [Genesis 4:14] and "It came to pass" in [Genesis 27:1].

[Genesis 1:3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. This word translated "was" in this verse is also "Hayah" and you can readily see the usage where God said.......and there "Became" light!

There are many other instances in the Hebrew where "Hayah " is used to denote "Became" or "it came to pass".

The words "without form and void" in verse 2 are the Hebrew "tohu va bohu" and are Strong's #8414 and #922. Tohu: tohuw (to'-hoo)from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

Bohu: bohuw (bo'-hoo)from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an indistinguishable ruin emptiness, void.

Now we can see that the English words used for this do not give quite the same picture......(without form and void). Moses calls it a desolation....evidently a result of some type of catastrophe.

[Isaiah 45:18] For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

It seems from just a casual reading of these verses that one can understand there was something here before [Genesis 1:2] and whatever it was that got rearranged was probably created billions of years earlier in [Genesis 1:1].

279 posted on 07/22/2007 7:58:17 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
The first "was" is this: Strong's #1961. hayah (haw-yaw)to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary)

The second "was" is in Italics in the KJV and is included to make the verse more readable in English. The Hebrew word "Hayah" is not present in the original language here.

Well, Diego, if the word that represents the basis of the argument for the concept of transition isn't even there, then how does that demonstrate an answer to my question.

[Genesis 1:3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. This word translated "was" in this verse is also "Hayah" and you can readily see the usage where God said.......and there "Became" light!

And the light was a transition from?

Where is the word indicating a transition from one state to another...especially a state which qualitatively similar.

Again, I don't see my question, or request, being answered here.

Now we can see that the English words used for this do not give quite the same picture.....

You're kidding, right?

Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me, the words used in the KJV are right there in the definition you posted.

Moses calls it a desolation....evidently a result of some type of catastrophe.

I'm not sure what you're reading, but I don't see that conclusion in any way, shape , or form, in the verse that you quoted. In fact, I've seen other people post the same verse, and the same conjecture before, and I look at it (the verse) and think to myself....what in the hell are they talking about....

It seems from just a casual reading of these verses that one can understand there was something here before [Genesis 1:2] and whatever it was that got rearranged was probably created billions of years earlier in [Genesis 1:1].

No offense, but either you're crazy, or I am, because not only do I not see it, but I don't even see how anyone can come away with anything close to that conclusion from what you've presented here.

280 posted on 07/22/2007 8:39:56 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-324 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson