posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:27 AM
It is hard to reply to evidence such as you post. The reason is that you are considering one issue in isolation from other interrelated issues.
On the one hand you reject the orthodox scientific dating scheme. On the other hand you believe that most of the strata were laid down in a great
flood which occurred within the span of recorded history.
I too was in the same position some years back. I spent years trying to sort out the evidence, even writing to prominent creation scientists that I
perceived were honest, asking questions.
In the end, I realised that there was evidence that was *independent* of there having been a flood which demonstrated that the strata were not all
laid down during a great flood. This came in the form of daily layers in coral. It is possible to count the number of such layers per year. Throughout
the geological column corals record an increasing number of days in the year as you go back in time, all the way up to about 400 days a year.
This is in fact a change that we measure today very precisely and is in fact responsible for our introduction of leap seconds. It is also understood
very well physically in terms of tidal friction, moments of inertia and so on and can be modeled accurately. In fact, the models can even account for
speeding up and slowing down of the rates of change due to the shifting of the continents due to continental shift which we measure accurately today
Note that this later modelling and measurement evidence only helps to confirm the primary evidence. However, even without it one can be absolutely
certain that the strata were not laid down in the single year of the flood. After all, a single year cannot have had 365, 370, 380, 385, 390 and 400
days. They are of necessity different years. Moreover the agreement of these differing numbers of days agrees well with the established dates of the
geologic column going back about 400 million years.
Note carefully that the evidence does *not* depend on any kind of radiometric dating whatsoever. The 400 million years can be accounted entirely
through a perfectly well understood physical mechanism which is directly and precisely measurable today, namely the slowing of the rotation of the
The same evidence is also independently confirmed through a similar but subtly different mechanism in bivalve molluscs.
Once I realised that these pieces of evidence were *independent* of a global flood and independent of radiometric methods of dating, in full agreement
with secular timescales, able to be independently confirmed and modeled according to simple physics, etc., I had to accept that the world was at least
400 million years old, or at least of that order.
Once I could see that the geologic column is not a fiction I had to accept that the world is likely as old as it is measured to be (around 4.55
billion years at the time I looked at it).
I should point out that despite being very uncomfortable with this conclusion it did not shake my faith. I am still a fervent, practicising Christian.
In fact it is possible that by resolving this issue in my own mind I have had more time to focus on the important central doctrines of the gospel,
namely that it is not by being good or obeying rules that we are saved but by a free gift of God's grace in his Son, Jesus Christ who died for our
sins on the cross, reconciling us with God and being raised from the dead to the right hand of God in glory, also indicating the destiny of all who
accept this free gift of grace and who accept Jesus Christ as their savior and Lord.
I also came to accept after some time that evolution does occur to some degree in some groups of animals. However, I have spoken publicly on the fact
that I see major shortcomings in the theory as a whole. I admit that evolution is the best naturalistic theory we have to explain the diversity of
life on earth. However after much study I found many serious difficulties. I don't throw the whole theory out as there is clear evidence that
evolution occurs at some level, as many creationists also accept. However I do not accept that there is unequivocal evidence for undirected evolution
being responsible for the diversity of life on earth, nor do I accept that there is unequivocal evidence for universal common descent.
Moreover, in some very important areas I find science to be completely short of answers. Those include the origin of life itself, the origin of the
physical universe and an explanation for consciousness. It is with delight that I find that it is precisely these areas that God claims to have been
I certainly hold all my scientific "knowledge" in probation. It is subject to change all the time as I come to understand it better. If someone
could show me that the world and the universe were only 6,000 years old in a convincing scientific way, I would accept that. However, at the present
time I cannot even conceive of a model which would overcome the many objections that would be raised.
Now getting back to your original question regarding dinosaurs. Much of the evidence you have presented has been totally debunked in other places.
Some more honest creation scientists have in fact accepted or even been involved in this debunking. Unfortunately the same old evidence gets recycled
Rather than respond in detail to your many claims, can I recommend that you broaden your set of resources to include material which contradicts the
position you take. It is essential to avoid antichristian material which has been constructed by atheists who intend to destroy your faith.
Concentrate on material which is written in a humble and honest manner. It does exist. Look for information which presents the facts only and which
demonstrates an understanding of how intertwined all these issues are.
The other thing to be careful of is what constitutes evidence. Ancient drawings of dinosaurs are as ambiguous as ancient drawings of
extraterrestrials. They are open to interpretation and without an uncontested written record describing what is in the drawings they could be anything
from imaginations to dreams to something that looks similar but which is more mundane.
Unfortunately, occurrences of dinosaur footprints coincident with human footprints are not even ambiguous. They have been studied in detail and are
conclusively shown to be other than what is claimed. There is no evidence of human coexistence with dinosaurs.
We'd find everywhere dinosaur bones with human spears in them or damage inflicted by humans. There are many other ways in which we could gauge the
interaction between the two species. It's not found anywhere. They are not even found in the same strata, so impossible to find an interaction.
There is really extensive evidence that dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago and that humans did not coexist with them. This is not even
a little bit in dispute in scientific communities. It's really not subject to interpretation. And this evidence has little to do with radiometric
Again, it is not my intention to try and shake your faith. I hope that it becomes stronger and more resilient. Too many have lost their faith
altogether as they've struggled with this issue. One thing that I do is read the Bible for doctrinal understanding. I fully accept the doctrine of
the first man Adam and his wife Eve who sinned. This is crucial to our understanding of our faith. But I do not know who this Adam and Eve were or
when they lived. Nor do I try to identify them.
That issue does not change my understanding of my faith or my acceptance of the gospel in any way. I live precisely as someone who fully accepts every
word of Genesis as literally true as the Bible makes clear we are to do.
But I nevertheless leave room for the fact that I am limited in knowledge and understanding and cannot know precisely in a scientific sense how God
created the world and when. It is quite possible that my scientific knowledge is not even up to it even if it were explained in the Bible.
I also leave room for the Bible to be interpreted in the context of the kind of literature that it is. The early part of Genesis is a peculiar style
of literature which I don't claim to understand in depth. There are many curious features in the first couple of chapters, such as the few different
words that are used and the strange formulaic kind of writing. And you have to admit that it is interesting that Genesis records people as having
lived nearly a thousand years and yet never has evidence emerged of skeletons of thousand year old people. I simply take this to mean that the details
that we are not meant to know are deliberately obscured from us.
What is very clear is that from the time of Abraham onwards, there is a very clear and accurate historical record. I have recently been studying the
writings of the early Christians, some of who knew the apostles. No historical event in history is so well-attested as the life, death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ and the subsequent spread of His gospel to the nations by the apostles.
What the Bible tells us about it is all we need to know to come to a knowledge of the truth in Jesus Christ. I don't doubt any of it. But I certainly
do not accept that there is room for humans and dinosaurs to have coexisted. I don't pretend to reconcile this with a literal interpretation of
Genesis 1. As much as I believe that account is literally true, I also accept that the account is stylized to convey the important facts which are
essential to our faith, not to provide a historical account of how those events took place.
And by the way, I do not condemn people who take a strict literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, so long as they are honest that they do no know
how science is to be reconciled with this truth. But I also consider it a massive distraction from the far more important issue of the death and
resurrection of Christ which is most certainly not written about in a stylized way. It is clearly intended as an accurate historical record and I do
not know of any evidence which challenges it, only people who do not believe it.
I wonder at times whether the Creation Science vs Consensus Science issue is the "strong delusion" written of in the book of Revelation which is
sent to deceive us, which would deceive even the elect if that were possible. It certainly is a massive distraction.