Please Explain the Existence of Dinasour Fossils

[Mrs. LPW]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I know the "dinosaurs" who don't believe in dinosaurs, have nearly all died out.

My dad still doesn't... I pray he sticks around though, since we don't have dinosaur discussions, it's not a problem.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

I have never - not once in this lifetime - heard a Christian response to the existence of dinasour fossils.

Anybody know of any good source material?

EARTH'S EARLIEST AGES, by GH PEMBER wrote about the gap of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 of an untold amount of years. In it he proposed that dinosaurs are indeed millions of years old, and that God did not CREATE the world in the six days BUT MADE it after it was devastated by satan's fall and God's judgment on him in the earth. (There is a difference in the Hebrew terms translated as MAKE and CREATE.) In it, he mentions dinosaurs, for whatever it's worth.

Has anyone yet mentioned the details of the theory? I studied it out and can share what Pember said, but I have not read all the posts to know if anyone already posted the thought.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

I read an article once that stated that God had wiped out a previous creation here on this earth before us. Supposedly, that is why the earth was "without form" and "void."

Does anyone know anything about that teaching and/or where it originates from?


Is that a prominent doctrine in Christianity?

Yes, I studied this out. This is the one I referred to. Has anyone already posted the answer?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Neckstadt

How can one become Eternal after having a beginnning?

Eternal is without beginning or end.

We may enter Gods Eternity.

But we will always be Mortal without end...

We can be immortal, though. This mortality shall put on immortality. We shall be CHANGED. We can never be eternal, since we "began". Eternity is no beginning nor ending. But we shall be made immortal.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Mrs. LPW

My dad still doesn't... I pray he sticks around though, since we don't have dinosaur discussions, it's not a problem.

The last people I have personally met who felt this way were during the 70's (I was very young then).

Then again, there are still those who believe that stars are really much MUCH closer then those humanistic astronomers say. The problem with astronomy, cosmic time scales, and physics in general is that the numbers get so mind boggling big (and sometimes small) and hard to comprehend that many simply don't. They end up saying "bah! if the bible dint say it, it dint happen...no how!"

[OneAccord]

I knew a guy that said the belief in dinosaurs was a "trick of the devil" to discredit the Bible. Its funny, I always thought the opposite, that their existence proves the Bible to be true. Think of it. If there were no dinosaurs, those Bible references that suggest they did exist, would make the Bible look like a fairy tale, or like Greek mythology or something.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

Dinosaurs existed. Thats a fact. Another fact is, some still do exist. Not the Jaurassic Park variety, but, some are still around. True, they have evolved, become smaller due to changes in their envioment, but they are around.

Now, don't shoot me for using the word evolve. Evolutiuon is also a fact, when it is used in the strictest since of its difinition. To "evolve" is to "adapt to the enviorment". Our bodies evolve all the time. A pale person spends time at the beach, they get a sun burn. But, over time, their skin darkens (tans) to protect itself from the sun. A person uses a shovel for the first time. Their hands blister. But, over time, the hands develop extra layers of skin (callous) to protect their hands from injury. Thats evolution. ( Man did not evolve from one species to another, however).

The problem (in my uneducated opinion), is that when we try to nail the first few Chapters of Genesis as fact (It happened exactly like that), we encounter difficulties. In our quest for answers, we only dig up more questions. The light someone talked about earlier. Where did it come from prior to the 4th day? And, the time line. The belief the earth is 6000 years old is from those who take the Creation story literally.

I think, and again, this is just my opinion, the Creation story is a poem or song that sums up the story of how the world was made. It isn't to be taken as a literal fact. It leaves too many unanswered question to be a factual account of the Creation. Does that mean I believe it is inaccurate? No, any more than Jesus' parable of Lazurus and the Rich Man is inaccurate. Not literal fact but an illustration to make a point. The Creation story of Genesis is simply that. A parable that makes the point that it was God that created the universe. The first 4 words of Genesis tell us what we need to know. That it is God who is the Creator. Everything else, how long it took, how it happened, the sequence of events, and so on, is open for speculation and conjecture. But to nail it down and say "This is how it happened. Period." only genders questions like "What about the Dinosaurs?" It really answers no questions at all.

True.

I personally prefer the term adaptation or the phrase adaptation within a species so as to avert any confusion that might occur when people hear me use the term evolve or evolution.

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

True.

I personally prefer the term adaptation or the phrase adaptation within a species so as to avert any confusion that might occur when people hear me use the term evolve or evolution.

Good point. There is evidence for evolution within kinds, but not evolution across kinds. Thus there is good evidence that man has evolved to some extent but not that apes turned into humans. (Even Darwin saw that this kind of evolution was weak in evidence) For example, horses were much smaller in ancient days than today. Skeletal evidence from Christ's time indicate that the average male human in Palestine was 4' 3". Kind of alters your mental picture of Jesus a little, huh? I'll never be able to talk about a short man's complex again in the same light.

Regarding the old creation theory where the world was supposedly destroyed. This is probably creation proposal is called the Gap or Reconstructionist Theory. It developed in the 18th and 19th century as science produced evidence that the earth was older than the young earth theolgians claimed. As Sam said, the theory goes that Gen 1:1 creation was inhabited by pre-Adamic or Old Stone Age people. They said that because of Lucifer's rebellion and the sin of the pre-Adamites God destroyed the creation (Gen 1:2, Is 24:1, 45:18, Jer 4:23-26). Then the earth was w/out void (Gen 1:2) and according to them millions of years past (insert dinos) and then at about 4000 bc God reconstructed the earth and created Adam as a New Stone Age man. In doing so this theory attempt to reconcile scientific evidence with Biblical accounts. Their main argument is based on the difference in the Hebrew verb translated "created" in Gen 1:1 which is" bara "and is a much stronger, emphatic word for creation than the verb "asah" used in later verses that means to remake and the verb "male" in Gen 1:28 that they say really means "fill up again".

The reason some of the old school dispensationalists guys mentioned in another post probably held to some variation of this view is that it was popularized in the original Scofield Reference Bible popular w/so many dispensationalists.

Personally, while I'm not so sure about the whole pre-Adamic race thing and I don't think Lucifer was cast down from heaven until the NT I do think the whole old earth thing makes sense. Lightfoot's claim that the earth was created @ 9:00 am on Oct. 23, 4004 b.c seems a little goofy to me and doesn't square w/scientific evidence.

Even if you think that creation in Gen 1 is literal you can still reconcile long periods of time by rejecting "days' as 24 hr periods. This is very plausible and could account for dinos too.

Either way, the earth is old.

(Hello Newman. How have you been?)

[Arphaxad]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Ok they have found Dinasour BONES. No one has ever seen one. So how can they make pictures of what they looked like? Those are pure speculation.

Although they have bones they do not know what the flesh that covered the bones looked like. Having that as a foundation thought what about this for a theory?

The Dinasours are actually fossils of THE NEPHILLIM. The GIANTS spoken of in Genesis 5. Why not?

actually there was some pottery found in S America from ancient times that had pictures of brontosaurus and t-rex looking creatures being hunted by little guys (in comparison to the animals) w spears.
I have these creation seminar videos by Kent Hovind that document these finds, among other things. He does the best explaining about dinosaurs and the creation and the flood etc. i've heard so far.
Some of his other ideas are kinda out there though, like arming teachers w guns. Last I heard he is in trouble for refusing to pay income tax.



ARPH

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

I have never - not once in this lifetime - heard a Christian response to the existence of dinasour fossils.

Anybody know of any good source material?

Have you ever heard of Arlo Moehlenpah? He explains prehistoric creatures rather well.