Wednesday, May 24, 2006

did or didn't the dino..?

This is going to be easy, maybe... ~~~~~~~~

In no overly complex terms to you guys really believe in a literal six day creation? ~~~~~~~~

If this is the case do you believe that the world is roughly six thousand years old? ~~~~~~~~

If yes or no, do you believe that dinosaurs co-existed with humans? ~~~~~~~~

I’ll go into my theories once I get some communal kindling smoking. ~~~~~~~~


kermitgrn said...

Yes to all three. I wish I could post pics with comments. There is archaeological evidence for co-existence. Scientist try to avoid it or denounce it.

So, you'll have to cut and paste to view these (lengthy reads):

Just some pictures (but may take a while to load):

Jamison said...

yes, i beleive in dinos...
yes, i beleive in 6 day creation...
and yes to the other one...

If God cant do it all in 6 days, then he is too tired or weak and not a God.

I think he could have done it in 1 day, but arent weekends kewl?

Brewster said...

Mullins, read my comment about setting up paragraphs.

What if the earth was older? What if God took his time between day one and day 2? does that matter?

Is the problem with an older earth because it means evolution? What if the earth was super old, but evolution didn't occur. Like it sat around witha bunch of water and land without animals for millions of years.

Just askin.

I tend to believe in a young earth, but honestly I don't give the question all that much thought.

kermitgrn said...

I don't like re-inventing the wheel. Here's a great article about gaps in the record.

bigsip said...

Yes to all 3, too.

I've read a lot of convincing evidence for a young earth.

In answer to Brew's question, I believe it is important to think about.

The Bible speaks of a literal 6-day creation. If we discount that, we're saying God's a liar.

So, although I don't care to discuss it, hence Chuck's articles, I think it's important for us to have a ready defense for it.

kermitgrn said...

Sip made a good point about making God out to be a liar. Brew made a good point about the Earth just sitting there with nothing going on. Like god had some playdoh and hadn't made it into anything yet. While something like that may have occurred, it's not relevant to any of the arguements.

Geologist/Archaeologists date the rocks by what's in them (or by what's not in them) and date what's in the rock by the rocks they are in.

It's circular reasoning

mullinz8 said...

Shop talk: Brew where did you post that info on setting up paragraphs?

Yes this is long… Don't let that stop you from reading.

Topic: I think, for me at least, a lot of this is circling around to how much faith we put in the Bible as a whole. Jesus considered the Genesis stories as factual as the nose on his face, shouldn’t I and shouldn’t this include the account of creation? Jesus also warned against misleading

If I’m going to assume that the words for a “day” in Genesis are translated in later OT scripture with different meanings, which they aren’t, then what else am I going to assume about the whole of Biblical accuracy? A burning bush and talking donkey are pretty silly but if the Word is real today like it was in centuries past should I really argue the method God chooses to communicate?

If not over Biblical accuracy, I think this becomes a matter of selective faith and that is dangerous.

Also I think it diminishes the power of God. Could he have rested for a few million years, sure. Could he have done it in six days, sure. Do we know what happened, no. Especially as members of the church of Christ we’re famous for not reading into and speculating what we think the Bible is really saying. If the translations are correct from the original text shouldn’t we choose to simply believe?

If this is the case, are we not charged to be able to give an account for our faith under any circumstance including evolution and millennial theory based on as much scientific fact as we can offer inline with the call of faith?
~ ~ ~ ~
Does this matter? I think so. Isaac loves dinosaurs and with a lot of recent study, Chucks/AP’s help I’m able to supply him with arguments disguised as proven, still in existence, facts against the evolutionist’s doctrine. I do think doctrine is the appropriate word to use here. There is a lot of background to my interest in this but it revolves around the FACT that scientists have chosen what information to include as “fact” in my children’s text books. Science should not pick and choose its facts like a team in middle school gym class. Same issue for selective faith.

Every US state has a clause in their laws governing their school systems, clarifying that no false information should be distributed as fact. Evolution is a theory that has almost no scientifically proven facts and proofs to prove anything about true evolutionary development. There IS proof through cave drawings, sculptures, fossil records, and numerous other artifacts of antiquity that prove the existence of Barney existing with humans. (Yeah his teachers are going to love me…)

I do not want schools to say that because of this God has to exist, though he does, but I want the inclusion of this information to be scientifically scrutinized for what it is rather than discounted as something that has to be equated with God. God is obviously part of the equation we as a society has chosen to follow science and “facts” over faith. It’s our job to show the alternatives. God will be able to sway the hearts of those willing to listen to full spectrum of actual facts through assumed ones.

A final though I consider as I prep my son for Kindergarten is this Matthew 18:4-6
4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

bigsip said...

Awesome points, Mullins. Sorry I'm not more chatty today. I've been very busy at work.

Brewster said...

To make paragraphs use one of these "<" followed by a "p" followed by a ">" All of those symbols are smooshed together without the quote marks.

Click here for a pretty good site on basic html

Jamison said...

i did the 'p' (but with <> on either side of it) after each sentence i wanted a space after in my 'Church' post... very easy, saves time more than ~~~~~~~

kermitgrn said...

I think it's wierd that comments come out fine. Did someone mess with some blogger setup settings recently?

bigsip said...

I didn't...

I hate using HTML when I shouldn't have to.

It's easy, but cumbersome...