Question for theists...

D

Dark Virtue

New Member
Just a question for you guys.

Where do Dinosaurs and hominids fit into your view of creation? (For those that don't know, hominids are members of the family Hominidae, which includes Homo sapiens as well as extinct species of manlike creatures;homo erectus, Australopithecus, etc.)

When were they created? Why were they created? Where did they go?

Thanks!
 
To the dinosaurs side of thing...dinosaur = Greek deinos, monstrous + Greek sauros, lizard. So God created them. Created 5th day. The rest will have to wait until tomorrow.

Good Night
Gen
 
well the book of Job is brought up many times discussing dinosuars andhumans living together, there isa reference to a Behemoth. As to why and when they became extinct I don't know
 
For consideration....Maybe they are not extinct, just living in areas where they cannot be seen. Couldn't there be parts of South America and Africa where the tree canopy is dense enough to hide the activities below?
 
Possible yes, but not probable.

Dinosaurs didn't just live in africa, that's why we have a fossil record of them all over the world.

As far as I was aware, the fossil records that we have do not show evidence of man and dinosaurs living during the same period.

And what of the hominids? The differenst stages of "man"? Why were these creatures created?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As far as I was aware, the fossil records that we have do not show evidence of man and dinosaurs living during the same period.
Click to expand...

I think I mentioned this before, but a hammer/tool thing was found and dated around a million years ago. It was a creationist site and it saw that this meant that perhaps man and dinosaur had once coexisted. The funny thing was it cited this evidence as refuting evolution... When it also refuted young Earth creation too!
 
we already know Dinos exist. there skeletons are all over. And I am certain it was the flood that wiped them out.
Evolution, most epople misunderstand it, Evolution is a word it has a meaning. And seperate form that it is a belief. You cannot say evolution doesnt exist because it is all around us. Take newts for exaple every few generations their venom changes and becomes more powerful. THAT Is evolution, A chemical change to adapt. NOw the theory of EVolution saying we all came from a lime in space, it pretty stupid. But then again who knows if thats not how god did it? Maybe he created the universe with a big bang? We dont know.
THere WERE different stages of man, we are always evolving, look back to george washington's days, not only were all of the people alot shorter but they had a smaller brain capacity. It is evolution. DO I think were once monkeys? No way, but if you look at how God described the garden of eden and its giant fruit wouldnt it make sense for adam to have a larger jaw then us?
 
I remember like in 2 grade they had a book like dinosours and the bible quite interesting acutlly how do you spell that actully
rock.gif
 
I think Jim is talking about creationists.org, check this link: http://www.creationists.org/mananddinos.html

And Actually is spelled A C T U A L L Y
smile.gif


As far as God initiating the Big Bang...if you believe in God and beleive that He is omnimax, then He can do anything, including initiating a Big Bang.

I'm still doing research into this dino/man thing, but the "evidence" I have found supporting this theory is suspect at best.
 
You might find this interesting (regarding the Ica stones):

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]There is a "very revealing interview with a Basilio Uchuya and his wife, Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana, two peasants from Callango, published some years ago by Mundial magazine (Anonymous 1975). In it, Basilio and Irma admit that all of the stones they sold to Cabrera they had carved themselves....That yellowish, ancient layer that covered the stones was as easily obtained, said Basilio: once the etching was done, the stones were placed in a poultry pen and chickens did the rest. Finally, a recent examination of the stones, done in Barcellona by José Antonio Lamich, founder of the Spanish "Hipergea" research group, revealed signs of sandpaper and recent carvings, thus fueling the hoax hypothesis. When questioned why they did it, the hoaxers answered that etching stones was easier than tilling the soil" (Skeptical Inquirer, Sept/Oct 2002)."
Click to expand...

From: http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/baugh.htm

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Why don't scientists simply date the stones and settle the matter? Stones without organic material trapped in them can only be dated by dating the organic material in the strata in which they are found. Since Cabrera's stones come from some mystery cave which has never been identified, much less excavated, there is no way to date them.
Click to expand...

From: http://skepdic.com/icastones.html
 
Are you talking about the hammer specifically or everything on the page?

I know the handprint thing in Puluxy has been discredited.

Let me look into the hammer.

EDIT:

The hammer appears to be encrusted with calcium carbonate, which does not take a long time to happen, it can happen fairly quickly. The fossils are embedded in nearby rocks, not actually IN the calcium carbonate surrounding the hammer. There isn'ty any evidence to prove that the hammer is more than a few decades old.

Link: http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/hammer.htm

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Evidently no photos or other reliable documentation exists to confirm the exact circumstances of the original discovery. However, the lack of sharp marks on the nodule seems to confirm the reports that it was found loose and not chiseled from a larger rock.
Click to expand...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]From the start Baugh and other creationists seemed to presume without clear evidence that the nodule in question was once a natural part of the nearby rocks. They also seemed to have trouble deciding what mainstream geologic period the nearby rocks represented.
Click to expand...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Close examination of the Paluxy evidence does not support the presence of genuine human tracks, and no rigorous evidence has been presented by any creationists linking the hammer to the nearby strata in Red Creek, let alone those in Glen Rose.
Click to expand...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Although the hammer has been kept under close guard by Baugh and thus not readily available for detailed analysis by conventional scientists, in 1985 NCSE researcher John Cole briefly reviewed Baugh's hammer claims. Although Cole did not challenge Baugh's presumption at the time that the nearby rocks were Ordovician, Cole pointed out that minerals dissolved from ancient strata could harden around a recent object, stating:

The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble (Cole, 1985).
Click to expand...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]However, for years Baugh refused to allow the hammer to be C14 dated. In an exchange of letters between creationist Walter Brown and Jim Lippard in Creation/Evolution, Brown (1989) suggested that the hammer handle has not been dated because Baugh had three "understandable" conditions for dating it: that it be done with mass spectrometry, that Baugh be present during the dating, and that someone else pay for it. However, Lippard countered that no one has objected to the first two conditions, and that Baugh had no right to expect the third, since he's the one making the claims, and thus the one obligated to back them up. Even so, even after others offered to pay for the dating, Baugh declined to have it done. As Day (1991) wrote in a follow up letter: "Far from being 'understandable,' Baugh's stipulations seem to be little short of evasive tactics...If four years have gone by and nothing has happened, I think it is safe to conclude that Baugh has no interest whatsoever in determining the truth about his marvelous hammer."

Finally, in the late 1990's Baugh supporter David Lines reported on a web site (Lines, 1997, 1999) that carbon 14 dating had "recently" been done on a specimen from the inside of the handle, and that the results indicated an age between the Present and 700 years. This reporting format seemed a little curious, since most C14 labs report a date with a plus-or-minus margin of error, rather than just a flat range. Furthermore, no information was given about when or where this was done, or by what C14 method, nor was any formal report referenced. Therefore, such results seem somewhat suspect until more documentation is available, especially considering Baugh's history of dubious and unfounded claims.

Nevertheless, if the reported range, or the median figure of 350 years, is even roughly indicative of the hammer's age, it is more supportive of the mainstream view of the hammer than Baugh's. After all, Baugh considers the hammer to be a "pre-Flood" relic-- presumably at least a few thousand years old. Baugh reportedly dismissed the results as only evidence that C14 is untrustworthy. However, even many creationists consider C14 dating reasonably accurate to several thousand years or more.
Click to expand...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Despite some creationist assertions that the hammer is a dramatic pre-Flood relic, no clear evidence linking the hammer to any ancient formation has been presented. Moreover, the hammer's artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age. It may well have been dropped by a local worker within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved sediment hardened into a concretion around it. Unless Baugh or others can provide rigorous evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it remains merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact.
Click to expand...

So much for the hammer.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ([toj.cc]hescominsoon @ Sep. 26 2004,9:18)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Jim @ Sep. 25 2004,7:18)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As far as I was aware, the fossil records that we have do not show evidence of man and dinosaurs living during the same period.
Click to expand...

I think I mentioned this before, but a hammer/tool thing was found and dated around a million years ago. It was a creationist site and it saw that this meant that perhaps man and dinosaur had once coexisted. The funny thing was it cited this evidence as refuting evolution... When it also refuted young Earth creation too!
Click to expand...
Which creationist site? I have yet to find one that takes the earth anywhere near that old...especially given the questionable nature of carbon dating. Also..a big bang? This is kinda ludicrious. Think about it..how many times can you throw a hand grenade into a library with book all over the floor and expect all of the books to jump on the shelves..in perfect order..undamaged? This is totally illogical. I bet that creationist site is a bit out of touch..but i am interested in seeing it. Link please?
Click to expand...
Big band is completely Logical. THink of it like this. God closes his hands together, and spreads them apart creating the universe in an explosion of energy out of nowhere, and everything by God goes exactly where he wants it to. Just because its a sudden explosion doesnt mean it cannot be percise. You could create a grenade that will fling shards exaclty where you want them to, And im sure God could as well.
 
the way the universe is created, sure thats impossible to know until you ask God himself. Buyt evolution is a word and a theory, One is fact one is a theory.
 
No Byblos, they are BOTH theories. If you can not prove something, then it is a theory. Creationism is a theory, Darwinian Evolution is a theory.

It stops being a theory when there is incontrivertable proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top