Dinosaurs on the Ark? The Flood: Global or Local?

[ben]

Hi Josh,

My son taught me how to manuever through this site. Sometimes I'm kind of slow. When you say the preponderance of the evidence, could you expound on that? I know there were quite a few postings on this topic and I may have missed it.

[Josh]

When I get back I'll jump into it. I'll also read through Robin's article for a response (maybe on the plane if I need to fall asleep -- only kidding )

[Josh]

The problem here is that we will continue to talk past each other simply for the fact that you are convinced that fossils have been formed over millions of years and I believe that the fossils were created as a result of one mega disaster (Noah's flood).

Robin,

It sounds like you don't have much faith that a person could change their mind on this issue as a result of study, but that's exactly what happened with me.

The age of the earth is a complex question that requires a lot of reading and sorting through evidence.

I'd suggest to Ben or others who are undecided that the best thing to do would be read the best evidence that both sides have to offer. For instance, read through the article Robin provided (in favor of a youth earth perspective), or, from the other side of the coin (old-earth), read an article like this:

www.reasons.org/age-earth/radiometric-dating-techniques/deep-core-tests-age-earth

Better yet, I'm sure both Robin and I can recommend books on the subject. We even have some in the Aletheia library I believe.

Also, there is a thread on the subject of Evolution and the Age of the Earth (it deals with both topics). Here's a link to some of our previous discussions on that:

www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=science&action=display&thread=283&page=3

As to the topic at hand, because I'm convinced that the earth is around 5 billion years old and because I'm convinced that the fossil record is a reliable, though not complete, record of the history and progressive development of God's creation of life on earth, I conclude that dinosaurs could not have been on the ark because the fossil record indicates that they were extinct long before the advent of mankind.

As I've alluded to before, all that the young earth perspective would have to produce to falsify the old earth perspective, would be to find one valid fossil of a human and a dinosaur in the same geological strata. Or, failing that, almost any modern mammal in the same strata as a dinosaur.

In addition there is good biblical and scientific evidence, imo, to see the creation days as long epochs of time, allowing millions of years for God to create new species, for them to go extinct, and for new species to take their place. See: www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=science&action=display&thread=288

In other words, Ben, the question of dinosaurs on the ark rests on larger questions about the evidence for the age of the earth, interpretations of the days of Genesis, etc..

Sorry that might seem an unsatisfactory answer. If you take the time to read the links I posted, you'll understand the scope of the question a little better. But, on the other hand, unless it's really important to you, it might not be worth your time

[ben]

Thanks Josh,

I guess the debate is how old is the earth? I guess I'll leave it up to the experts. One experience I lived through is that I grew up a Roman Catholic and when I was taught evolution, I gave up on God. I'm real glad God did not give up on me.

[robin]

Robin,

It sounds like you don't have much faith that a person could change their mind on this issue as a result of study, but that's exactly what happened with me.

Thats not true. I changed my mind from old earth to young earth because I found that the evidence that is used to support old earth theories and evolution to be poor.

So as it turns out, you went from young earth to old earth, and I went the other way. so what, do you assume that I currently hold to all the theological views that I always have always held without changing my mind due to studying and growing? You should know that this is not the case, so why bother with the statement above?

Robin

[Josh]

I was trying to square the fact that you've changed your mind on various subjects just like I have, but yet you said:

The problem here is that we will continue to talk past each other simply for the fact that you are convinced that fossils have been formed over millions of years and I believe that the fossils were created as a result of one mega disaster (Noah's flood).

which seems like you don't have much faith that evidence could yet sway either of us.

[robin]

My point was simply that we could end up talking past each other on the current line of discussion. I believe in order to move forward we must first step back to evaluate the relative evidence for the origins of fossils.

Your position, as I understand it, is that dinosaurs could not be on the Ark because the fossil record proves that they had been dead for millions of years prior to the flood. Well in order to accept that argument as it stands, it must be proved without a doubt that the fossil record actually represents billions of years rather that one cataclysmic event. Once this issue is properly vetted out we can then move forward.

Apparently I did not express myself adequately. Hopefully this will clear things up.

Robin

[Josh]

Ah, makes complete sense. I see it now, and I agree.

However, you've got me thinking about other possible arguments besides the fossil record as to why dinosaurs couldn't have been on the ark.

I need a scratching my head smilie.

[davcal]

Hi, all. I just read thru this thread and have a couple of thoughts:

Josh: I met a professor of science that after 32 years of teaching evolution realized the science was wrong. I think the challenge here is not how many books we can read, but how the Lord can move our hearts to discern truth without outside influences. My studies have proven the literal days of creation & I'll save some of my opinions for the gap thread.

If the question is :Were there dinasours on Noah's ark?

I guess we'd have to start with a few more questions. How is the word dinasour defined? Did God promise to save ALL the animals or all species of animals? Since carbon dating is now debunked, do we really have the resources to be dogmatic?

[Josh]

Glad you're jumping right in

First off, I wouldn't say at all that carbon dating is debunked. The only examples I've seen from young earth creationists "debunking" carbon dating are examples where someone attempted to carbon date something outside the window of reliable carbon dating measurement (such as living animals). There are only specific windows of time that can be dated accurately with carbon dating.

And carbon dating is just one of many tests of age that scientists use.

I think the challenge here is not how many books we can read, but how the Lord can move our hearts to discern truth without outside influences.

Respectfully, I have to respond that sincere Christians who seek God's guiding fall on both sides of this issue. Also, I think it is impossible for us not to be influenced by "outside influences"- presumably you mean by that other people's perspectives and logic itself, right? I think we would be negligent not to take all the influences into consideration. As Paul said, "Test all things. Hold on to the good."

In answer to the other questions, no, I don't think God told Noah to save every single animal- only those from his region which were important for the survival of the human race and religious sacrifice.

[yeshuafreak]

who ever said that God could not continue to create after the 7 days? the first day is never said to end, which shows that collectively, the story of creation doesnt have an ending. creation continues.

actually, if god rested on the 7th day, than all his work would have been done on that da y, including the crucifixion of the mashiach and the redemtion of Yisrael and the world. the writer of hebrews points out that God was done with his redemptive work since the foundation of the world. this could possibly teach that god is outside time. but i think it refers to the Lord seeing the dat as a thousand years. i think the writer of hebrews is stating that the day of rest is more of a literary idea presenting the mellinial sabbath in which God truly does rest, and finsishes his work. in this case, the weekly sabbath would be a type of the true sabbath.

anyway, my point here is that it is possible that God is still creating animals even now. i personally think that God uses the laws he laid down at the foundation of the world to do his work now. only at first, he found the need to add some extra restraints such as keeping the waters from filling the whole earth. but now, there are enough laws that God has put on the earth to work through themto do his work. he does not need to break them to do his bidding.

i am getting way off track for the discussion at hand. i am sory. i prob did not make much since either.

shalom- john

[Josh]

anyway, my point here is that it is possible that God is still creating animals even now

But don't you think it's interesting that we can't document a case of a new species since the advent of mankind?

[davcal]

Respectfully, I have to respond that sincere Christians who seek God's guiding fall on both sides of this issue. Also, I think it is impossible for us not to be influenced by "outside influences"- presumably you mean by that other people's perspectives and logic itself, right? I think we would be negligent not to take all the influences into consideration. As Paul said, "Test all things. Hold on to the good."

Great point, Josh. I did not intend to direct it squarely at you, but the way I formed that thought really seemed like I was.
My point is that the only influence should be the Spirit and the rest should be considered information. We all have specific bias in all categories of life, but we would be foolhardy to ignore those mindsets. I include myself in the challenging and difficult task of determining what I have studied is the truth God intended us to know. The intents of other scholars are hopefully as sincere as ours, Josh. I guess that's why we "test" first and then believe second...

All Carbon dating, which has been considered the most reliable, is now debunked, but why is it not public knowledge? The science of half-life has been proven to be unscientific, therefore makes carbon dating a useless form of dating anything with any reliability. I will be more specific soon (as soon as I find my old notes).

Hi, John. Thanks for your thoughts.
The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis translates as a literal 24 hour period. The end of a day is not needed, because it is assumed. Even when we speak of the day "Tuesday"; when we mention "Wednesday", it is assumed that Tuesday is over and does not continue.

Take care.

[Josh]

The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis translates as a literal 24 hour period.

That is just one of three different possible literal meanings of yom. Here's some discussion of the length of the creation days:

How Long Were the Creation Days?

And I do think yeshuafreak has a point. Why is the 7th day, conspicuously, the only creation day that we aren't told has an evening?

[yeshuafreak]

But don't you think it's interesting that we can't document a case of a new species since the advent of mankind

like i said, the laws of God are already in place. he uses them to create now. he doesnt have to use supernaturalism to create ccreatures. he can uyse the natural laws as well. and since the advent of mankind, different creatures have been found arising in the fossil record, no matter how small. but we have surprisingly little to work with in the fossil record, so i cant really use that that much.

Davcal:

yom means a period of time, used mainly for day. however, yom is also used not so literally to mean age and such. the hebrew language has many different meaningf for one word.

however, i do think that days of genesis are literal days. but, it says god rested... he wouldnt rest until his plan of redemtion had come. therfore, the writer of hebrews makes a midrash, saying that each day represents a thousand years and on the 6th mellinium th eadvent of Yeshua will harken the coming of the mellinium shabbat. this is when GOd will really rest.

but again, in the first creation story, we are told every day has a morning and an evening. howeever, this is not so on the 7th day- for it it merely says GGod rests. this is why the midrash is necesary... it helps us understand that the mellinial shabbat will harken an eternity of bliss by the kingdom of God. so it will never really have an ending.

shalom- john

[Josh]

and since the advent of mankind, different creatures have been found arising in the fossil record, no matter how small

Care to give an example, because outside of the realm of bacteria or perhaps flies* I've never even heard of such a claim.

*which I don't think is an example of new speciation anyway.

As to your thoughts on the theory of a 7,000 year world- yes, indeed, that is found is some Jewish commentary but it's not really clearly present in Hebrews or anywhere else in the canonical scriptures. I don't personally think the author of Hebrews held that view- or at least we have no reason to think he did.

[davcal]

okay - there is a far reach to find symbolism in the evening being excluded from the seventh day. One can say many things to this but I want to put in my thoughts on the dinasours on the ark. Maybe I'll add to the exsisting thread on Creation days (eventually...)

Yes. Dinasours where on the ark. They were not called dinasours, just animals.

We all know fossils found in history have no human remains. Does there have to be? I say no. There are a number of reasons why humans would not be in the fossil records.

Are we in agreement that there was a catastrophy that sealed so many animals (quickly) in mud? Do we all agree on the world wide flood?

I'm out of time tonight, sorry about the tickler here.