The Last Dinosaur Died in 1927!

Ok, I don't believe that, but here we go!

Creationists belief of the worlds age is sooo wrong.

By definition i am a creationist, but not in the biblical sense. I believe something/one created and set our reality into motion, but do not attempt to define who.

Here's a funny but informative infograph that illustrates the absurdity of believing the earth to be 10,000 years in age or less from an observable geological standpoint. This specific graph illustrates the conclusion of James Ussher, an archbishop of the Church of Ireland from the 1700's, that the earth was was created around 4004 BC. According to traditional biblical creationists, the last dinosaur would have died in 1927! Tehehe ^_^


Source

Side note and personal question: How do those of you who think the world is less than 10,000 years in age explain visible stars that are billions of lightyears away?

Not a creationist not a big bang resident whatnot. That crap just gives me a headache and more questions. But I think I can answer your question. Whether the planet and we were here or not the light could have been traveling for a long time. Or when god said let there be light he included the light from everywhere else. If dude could just make everything in seven days why not plug in a few thousand nightlights.. Just saying. Instead of bagging on other peoples Faith work on your own. There are allot of things that I cannot explain and though I do not personally think its a work of god or magick. I do not go out of my way to hate on people who do.. Most these Posts are all the same. Talking how this group is wrong or this group is right. Why not just let them have their faith instead of trying to prove them wrong.

Therian

reply to post by Therian

Why not just let them have their faith instead of trying to prove them wrong.

I don't have a problem with people sticking to their beliefs, but this sites motto is to deny ignorance is it not?

To do so, some beliefs must be disproven. Just getting some compelling truth out there. To take it or leave it is up to the reader.

hi op

dinosaurs are still here

crocodiles have not changed in millions of years
nor sharks
(well thats what our brilliant scientists say)

Originally posted by davesmart
hi op

dinosaurs are still here

crocodiles have not changed in millions of years
nor sharks
(well thats what our brilliant scientists say)

Crocodiles and sharks? ARE YOU FOR REAL?

REAL MOVIE BY THE WAY
www.imdb.com...

dinosaurs are extinct. That does not mean live has not been constant since then and now.

oy vey...

Actually, the flaw in the OP is trying to fit an evolutionary timescale into a creationist one and assume that they can legitimately overlap.

Creationism doesn't just deny the time frames given by evolutionary theory, it denies evolutionary theory itself (at least, the theory of abiogenesis and the evolution across species borders).

The Biblical picture is one of a world in which evolution has not occurred according to the theory. Evolution, rather than being a positive process, is in fact a degenerative process; a facet of entropy. Mutations are a destructive force, rather than a productive force: they always result in a loss or duplication of existing information, and never result in NEW information being added to the genome.

In this worldview, the earth was created complete. Man and woman existed alongside dinosaurs and the rest of the animal kingdom within the first week. To suggest that you even need to allow for numerous ages or eras within that 10,000 year span of time is erroneous and shows a gross misunderstanding of what Creationists teach and believe, and what the Bible states.

As far as starlight and time - there are many theories out there on this, including theories regarding the speed of light (was it faster in the past?), the origin of light (when God said "let there be light", did he create light mid-stream throughout the universe? Was light from the stars already reaching the earth on the first day?), and even what's called "Gap Theory", which suggests that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2; that is, that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. AND THEN the earth became shapeless and void, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters... (the "and then" being the gap). Whether this is appropriate textually or theologically isn't the point here, but the point is...
there are ways in which it can be considered logically consistent to view starlight as being something other than evidence for a universe billions of years old.

reply to post by Awen24


YOU SIR, I like.

well put post. Oh how I long to read things like this here, it's rare, but you prove it does happen.

Thank you!

reply to post by winofiend



I love your sarcasm

i like the way you derail a thread

hope to converse soon

Originally posted by davesmart
hi op

dinosaurs are still here

crocodiles have not changed in millions of years
nor sharks
(well thats what our brilliant scientists say)

Because we have ONE type of sharks and they all eat, look, and swim the same, right?

I'm pretty sure Henry Kissinger is still alive?

reply to post by twistedlogic


Good picture. I got a nice chuckle out that. The thing you have to realize is that young earth creationists don't go by any type of scientific evidence or data. They believe the entire geological column is false, and that all radiometric dating methods of isotopes are wrong. They believe all creatures in the history of our planet lived together like 6000 years ago then all land animals were wiped out and fossilized by global flood, except the ones alive on earth today, two of each species fit inside a magic wooden boat. Then they all inbred happily ever after.

reply to post by Awen24


Alright, sorry I've taken so long to reply. And actually i think the exact opposite, the flaw with the young earth creationist is trying to fit the universal timescale into a timescale constructed through the interpretation of multiple books/writings written hundreds of years apart.

The Biblical picture is one of a world in which evolution has not occurred according to the theory......
...... To suggest that you even need to allow for numerous ages or eras within that 10,000 year span of time is erroneous and shows a gross misunderstanding of what Creationists teach and believe, and what the Bible states.

Obviously, I do not think creationists believe the last dinosaurs died in 1927. This graph just illustrates when era's would coincide with a creationist timeline according to current radioactive decay dating methods. Choosing between a 2000+ year old collection of books compiled and bounded by the majority votes of man made committees or laws observable through nature(your God's creation) as evidence is up to you.

Ugh, I didn't want to play the Bible game but since you insists, no, that is not right at all. The "biblical" creationist view is hardly biblical. It is a view based on an interpretation of the text, not the text itself. If you wanna go biblical, well you've made a jab at the right guy.

In this worldview, the earth was created complete. Man and woman existed alongside dinosaurs and the rest of the animal kingdom within the first week

The earth was not created complete, even according to the bible.

Evening and morning, one day (Gen 1:1-5) Earth was formless and void...God said let there be light, separated light from dark.

Evening and morning, a second day (Gen 1:6-8) Expanse of waters, waters above and below expanse separated. God called expanse heavens.

Evening and morning, a third day (Gen 1:19-13) Water below the heavens(expanse) gathered and dry land appears. Dry land called earth and gathering of waters, seas. Earth sprouts vegetation.

Evening and morning, a fourth day (Gen 1:14-19) Let there be lights in the heavens to separate day from night. Let them (lights) be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years. God made two great lights, greater to govern day, lesser to govern night, also made stars..

Evening and morning, a fifth day (Gen 1:20-23) Let waters teem with living creatures and birds fly above the earth in the open of the heavens. God created every living creature that moves...after their kind ( After their kind?? What kind was there before??)

Evening and morning, sixth day (Gen 1:24-31) Earth bring forth living creatures after their kind. God created man, male and female, in "our" image. To you i have given every green plant for food.

Seventh day (Gen 2:1-3) God rests.

2nd creation story (!?!? what?? theres two? yah, read up noob)

Gen 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created, in THE DAY the Lord God made creation."

Gen 2:5-7 No shrub was yet in earth, the lord had not sent rain and there was no man to cultivate ground. Then a mist arose and covered the whole surface. God formed man from the dust,..breathed life, and man became living

Gen 2:8-9 Lord planted garden in eden and placed man. Out of ground lord caused every tree to grow. Also tree of life and tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 2:10 River flowed out of eden to water the garden.

2:15 then lord took man and put him in garden of eden, again….

2:18-20 Not good for man to be alone, out of ground lord formed every beast and bird and man names them.

2:21-25 Alone still no good, female made. Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh. Naked no shame.

3:1-19 serpent, and tree of good and evil.

3:20 Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.

3:22 **Man has become like one of us** and now, he might stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever.

3:23 Sent from garden to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.

4:1 Now the man had realations with his wife even and she conveibed and gave birth to cain and she said “ I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord”


So in Gensis 1 plants, water, and beasts are all made before man but in Genesis 2 man comes before plants and beast. He's also placed in the garden twice without leaving in between, and names all the creatures of the earth before females are even around?

Also in Genisis 1 it is interesting to note that there were evenings and days before god created the governing lights of day and night on the fourth "day".

Point is none of it adds up, theres two conflicting creation stories within the first two chapters. If young earth creationism is your beliefs i suggest you do some research and find out who and when your beliefs came, because it most certainly isn't from the bible itself.

reply to post by Awen24

Evolution, rather than being a positive process, is in fact a degenerative process; a facet of entropy. Mutations are a destructive force, rather than a productive force: they always result in a loss or duplication of existing information, and never result in NEW information being added to the genome.

And this is just wrong. First off, evolution isn't only mutations. Secondly mutations aren't always destructive. Its about a 60/40 split between destructive, neutral or positive. Neutral and positive being the 40, which actually affirms the time span of evolution. Most mutations are useless and even useful mutations don't just instantly knock up the entire next generation, it takes time and luck for a productive mutation to become the norm so it takes a while to see progress.

lots of crocs left on earth ! and snapping turtles, sharks......

There are two creation storys and they are not exact. That is the nature of the written word. Dont forget creation is a faith. Exact or not we are told God created.
You believe in faith a big bang created.. I think that absurd. Where are the transitional fossils. Where are they?

How do stars light travel over millions and millions if they are not millions and millions of years old
Isaiah 40:22 >>
New International Version (©1984)
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
God stretched creation out from the centre.

Earth is somewhere in the centre of the universe. www.galileowaswrong.com...
Doppler effect is relevant but I dont care to waste time explaining it here.


and finally, remember rocks are dated by the fossils found in them and fossils by the rocks they are found in.

Research that to your hearts content then come back and explain it


and as an addendum, I have just read Ushers work, can you explain those dates listed. I dont seem to find them relevant to anything he stated. Considering he died @ 400 years ago.
I think you are making up an argument based on lies.

Originally posted by borntowatch
You believe in faith a big bang created.. I think that absurd. Where are the transitional fossils. Where are they?

What do transitional fossils have to do with the big bang? You seriously need to stop preaching in here as if you are familiar with science. You have clearly demonstrated you don't even understand the fundamentals.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'll post this anyway, despite the fact you'll ignore it and pretend it doesn't prove you wrong.

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
God stretched creation out from the centre.

Proof?

and finally, remember rocks are dated by the fossils found in them and fossils by the rocks they are found in.

100% false and a blatant lie.

Ever heard of the geological time scale, (200 year old science still accepted and has no evidence by the way) ever heard of Index fossils. Its not a lie Research it. Stand there wetting your pants and arguing, go research it, go link the evidence that refutes me
Stumbling Blocks of Evolution By Chris Nitardy. Here is a book and on page 59 is a quote by J . E. O'Rourks
'The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.'

Is there evidence of Isaiah, yeah Ttttooooons . Is there evidence that suggests the Big bang is real

and what do transitional fossils have to do with the big bang, not much other than you havnt seen either, neither has science an dyou accept them by faith.

Sorry but there was no DAY as humans know them when the first "day" started.
To even argue a creation timeline you would need to go from the very beginning to the event of humanity. Divide by six and you have the length of a creation day.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by borntowatch



Ever heard of the geological time scale, (200 year old science still accepted and has no evidence by the way) ever heard of Index fossils. Its not a lie Research it. Stand there wetting your pants and arguing, go research it, go link the evidence that refutes me
Stumbling Blocks of Evolution By Chris Nitardy. Here is a book and on page 59 is a quote by J . E. O'Rourks
'The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.'

Is there evidence of Isaiah, yeah Ttttooooons

. Is there evidence that suggests the Big bang is real

and what do transitional fossils have to do with the big bang, not much other than you havnt seen either, neither has science

an dyou accept them by faith.

This whole post is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts at best, and if this is known to the poster, an out and out lie.

You quote by O'Rourke is severly out of context and the author of the book you reference knows this. All the while, creationist websites and promoters continually throw it out there for their sheep. Will their sheep verify? No . . . because you need a subscription to the journal to check it out . . . therefore, repeat the lie enough and it becomes truth to the sheep. Just like every other claim "against" evolution by the movement.

Here is part of the summary to that article:

The first step is to explain what is done in the field in simple terms that can be tested directly. The filed man records his sense perceptions on isomorphic maps and sections, abstracts the more diagnostic rock features, and arranges them according to their vertical order. He compares this local sequence to the global column obtained from a great many man-years of work by his predecessors. As long as this cognitive process is acknowledged as the pragmatic basis of stratigraphy, both local and global sections can be treated as chronologies without reproach -O'Rourke American Journal of Science Vol 276 Jan. 1976 page 55

This paper is about and concludes the exact opposite to what our preaching poster is insinuating. Geologists can measure quite acurately due to a legion of dating procedures. Not all will apply to a situation, but to imply that they only date rocks by fossils and fossils shows extreme ignorance or willful misrepresentation for the sake of your faith (lying!!).

Another quote from the actual paper . . . you know right from the source, not christian books and websites, that talks about the reliablity of the process as viewed by other geologists. Please note these aren't the words of O'Rourke, but he is quoting other papers.

"These principles have been applied in Feinstratigraphie, which starts from a chronology of index fossils, abstracts time units from it, and imposes them on the rocks (Schindewolf, 1960, p. 7). Each taxon represents a difinite time unit and so provides an accurate, even 'infallible' date. If you doubt it, bring in a suite of good index fossils, and the specialist, without asking where or in what order they were collected, will lay them out on the table in chronological order, (Jeletsky, 1956, p. 692)." - O'Rourke American Journal of Science Vol 276 Jan. 1976 page 51-52

Creationists have simply latched on to the compaint that O'Rourke is making . . . unfortunately, they don't finish reading or don't understand the conclusion. I'm torn between ignorance and intellect, on this one.

American Journal of Science Vol 276 Jan 1976 47-55


And transitional fossils? They are everywhere . . . every fossil is a transitional fossil. You are a transitional species. All species are constantantly in a transitional state . . . evolution is not static.

If you are thinking that a transtitional species is a 50/50 split between two disparate species/families . . . you are right they don't exist. In fact, if they did . . . they would actually be evidence AGAINST evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory doesn't predict a crockaduck or flamingapus . . . this meaning of transitional only resides in the bizarro cartoon world of creationists.

reply to post by borntowatch

I have just read Ushers work, can you explain those dates listed. I dont seem to find them relevant to anything he stated.

I don't understand what all the confusion is about. The dates have nothing to do with his calculations. I'll spell it out since some are having trouble with subtleties. The graph assumes Ussher's calculations of the earth's age to be correct, the graph then takes the observed geological timeline of fossils and rocks and makes them relative to Ussher's calculations. This is done to dramatize the illogical belief that the earth is not even 7000 years old. Ussher's works are relevant to this dramatization because he was one of the first (yah one of the first's and lived in the 1700's) to try and calculate the earth's age based solely on descriptions given in a COMPILATION of books and stories passed on through the ages. (the Bible)

go link the evidence that refutes me

Ok.

remember rocks are dated by the fossils found in them and fossils by the rocks they are found in.

Wrong. Fossils and rocks are dated by the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred at the atomic level. Science Basics
Science Basics 2
More Science
Quick Fix Explanation
Quick Fix Explanation 2

Earth is somewhere in the centre of the universe.

Wrong again. And i don't need a source for this one, i can explain it quite simply without "sciency" words for you.
Hubbles observations were true, but an illusion. The universe is believed to be around 14billion years old (you can even substitute your own beliefs and this will still work out) So the universe is believed to be around 14billion/7 thousand years old. The observable universe (the universe observable by light/through telescopes) is around 28billion/14thousand light years across with 14billion/7thousand light years on either side of us. The universe is larger than 28billion lightyears across but since existence has only been around for 14billion/7thousand years this gives the illusion that we are at the center of everything since the light has only had that amount of time to travel. Make sense?

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
God stretched creation out from the centre.

This is poetry and metaphors, no refuting needed because, well, it is poetry and metaphors...

There are two creation storys and they are not exact. That is the nature of the written word. Dont forget creation is a faith. Exact or not we are told God created.

EXACTLY!! this is the nature of written word, so why hold it as fact? How do you make your decision to hold the 7 days literally over the second stories 1 day? How do you determine to take it literally at all?

And before anyone gets too butt hurt, I am not denouncing your God, simply poking holes in your logic and reasoning.