Did Dinosaurs Co-exist With Biblical Man?

Even the Jews who are chosen to hold God's Law, can't see the truth because they are blinded by Moses.

2 Corinthians 3:12-17 (KJV)
Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, [which] put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty.

Moses knew that would happen and said to them:

Deuteronomy 18:15-16 (KJV)
The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
 
Tubby, friend, what you don't understand is, like myself, ...many of us here have walked in your shoes, studied the same scientific data, came to the same logical conclusions and voiced the same arguments against the existence of God as you are now telling us, why even in our senior Yearbook we were proud because we had printed in bold letters, GOD IS DEAD.

So you see, many of us once thought like you do, ...so the LOGICAL question to be asking us is, "what caused us to change our logical thinking?"

Now will you please answer the questions in post #40?

Blessings,

Gene
 
Don't you turn the key in the ignition of your car expecting it to start without knowing the ration of oxygen compared to fuel that is need for it to start. That is FAITH isn't it.

Not really faith Major. The ignition ratio of fuel to air has been calculated carefully so that my carburettor delivers it in that exact ratio.

That ratio was derived from repeated experimentation until the desired outcome is reached. I am involved in this process occassionally when trying to start industrial gas turbines, I need to adjust the ratio depending on the BTU value of the gas. It's not a question of faith, I need to adjust the ratio and observe the outcome (a temperature rise) and make further adjustments to ensure a good light off.
 
So tell us Tubby, when you went to start your industrial gas turbine, ...did you take your tool box with you?

If you say no, then you had faith the turbine would start, if you say yes, then you had faith to bring the tool box with you in case the turbine didn't start.

Like I said friend, many of us have already been where you are at.

Oh, I forgot Majors example, yes you are correct, the carb is manufactured to deliver the correct air-fuel ratio, but what happens if a jet is clogged? Are you disappointed, if so then you were exercising faith that the engine would start and it didn't.

Blessings,

Gene
 
So tell us Tubby, when you went to start your industrial gas turbine, ...did you take your tool box with you?

If you say no, then you had faith the turbine would start, if you say yes, then you had faith to bring the tool box with you in case the turbine didn't start.

Like I said friend, many of us have already been where you are at.

Oh, I forgot Majors example, yes you are correct, the carb is manufactured to deliver the correct air-fuel ratio, but what happens if a jet is clogged? Are you disappointed, if so then you were exercising faith that the engine would start and it didn't.

Blessings,

Gene

You're not really giving me room to manoeuvre here, I need faith whether I take a toolbox or not? I always have tools because I know from experience that the ratio may need adjusting because of degradation of components or a change in fuel composition.

I'm not disappointed if an engine doesn't start, I know there is a reason and I find the cause. I don't exercise faith when starting a turbine, I know why it starts and why it fails because I have seen both cases and know how to correct it.
 
I delight in science - does that make me not a theist? It doesn't make me a scientist either. But if you are willing to consider the possibility - that is an agnostic. I can play to that tune. The other makes me think moron or/and waste of time. The other posters are correct tho, belief gives an edge to the understanding of the Bible but not, probably for the reason you might think. We do not throw rationality to the wind just because we are Christians. Interpetation can be a tricky business.
 
So yes, you either believe God or you believe man's opinions (which change almost every year or two (now "scientists" know for a "fact" this or that, and then several years later they say, "now we know it's this" and then they change it again, and again, and again, until they get to realizing that what God said in the first place was right all along...).

God says dragons (or in the English vernacular, Dinosaurs (1857)) co-existed with us. So why would I ever let anyone tell me otherwise? On top of God saying so in His Word you have all the evidence from Mt St Helens, the Grand Canyon, Texas, etc etc. It may not be long before ALL lions and tigers are extinct, and all that will be left of them will be bones (and now because of technology, pictures and videos))...just because you don't see a Leviathan or a Behemoth right now certainly doesn't preclude their existence with Job, for God did say, GO AND LOOK (behold), if He said that and Job couldn't do it, then God would be unjust, and He is not.

Besides, look at Adam and Eve, how "old" do you suppose they were? They were FULLY formed.....INSTANTLY, no growth period required. We are FAR more complex than the Earth itself. So you see God creating mankind instantly, though to the point where in the natural it would have taken 30 years at least most likely, so why would anyone have a hard time understanding that God did the same with everything else to get it started?

Look at the rock walls on Mt St Helens...any geologist blindfolded with no previous knowledge of what he is looking at would say millions and millions and millions of years, yet the absolute, video-taped truth is 300 layers of rock in under 3 hours. Hmm....
 
I have no knowledge of god but have not rejected god per say. I don't reject those things that I have seen no proof of.

I don't know all that has been proven by science of course. I understand the process by which theories are developed though.

I can read scientific proofs and look at the evidence and choose to accept or reject that paper.

I could say the same about a theist I suppose, you reject science without fully understanding it but accepts the bible without question. I think that may be the crux of 'my problem' - I need the option to refuse a science paper because it doesn't add up to me. I want to be able to question everything and if I chose the bible, that wouldn't be available to me any more.

You would still have the option of questioning everything if you chose the Bible. The difference is that you would know with no doubt that it was true.

The reason we believe the Bible is because it is truth. The only truth. That's part of what makes us Christian. When you become a believer the truth is made known inside you. You'll see. :) I have hopes for you, yet. ;-)
 
Not really faith Major. The ignition ratio of fuel to air has been calculated carefully so that my carburettor delivers it in that exact ratio.

That ratio was derived from repeated experimentation until the desired outcome is reached. I am involved in this process occassionally when trying to start industrial gas turbines, I need to adjust the ratio depending on the BTU value of the gas. It's not a question of faith, I need to adjust the ratio and observe the outcome (a temperature rise) and make further adjustments to ensure a good light off.

I think you missed the point Tubby! It is all about faith.

I was just pointing out how simple faith really is. We all have faith that our car key will start our car.

When you turn on your TV....you have faith that it will come on.

When you turn on your water at the sink....you have faith that water will indeed come out.
 
Ok, I accept that I have faith that water comes from a tap but it's based on something tangible (i.e. I can see the valve, the water pipe and the mains water supply from the water board).

If I turn the tap and there's no water it doesn't destroy my faith, I simply know that something has gone wrong in that system. I won't sit around and wait for the water to appear, I'll find out why it isn't there and do something about it.
 
Science as science is good. When Science becomes an apostle for a non theistic religion, that is when much friction is introduced.
A scientist can, for example mix some copper sulphate solution with Ammonia solution and see nice colour change occur. He can then reason that this happens because of a process he calls 'Ion Exchange'. That is good......maybe in time he can find some practical use for that...but it is when he turns around and says that because he understands this stuff, he is qualified to say there can not be a God, everything is explained by 'ion exchange', that his science moves from knowledge to biased opinion.
Maybe not the cleverest argument ever, but I have yet to have my morning shot of caffeine...yawnnnnn.
 
BTW we've just proved why we can't know the day or the hour of Jesus' return... point of reference :) The planet always has two days on it with some 40 timezones.
 
Science as science is good. When Science becomes an apostle for a non theistic religion, that is when much friction is introduced.
A scientist can, for example mix some copper sulphate solution with Ammonia solution and see nice colour change occur. He can then reason that this happens because of a process he calls 'Ion Exchange'. That is good......maybe in time he can find some practical use for that...but it is when he turns around and says that because he understands this stuff, he is qualified to say there can not be a God, everything is explained by 'ion exchange', that his science moves from knowledge to biased opinion.
Maybe not the cleverest argument ever, but I have yet to have my morning shot of caffeine...yawnnnnn.

You are presuming here that a scientist (or science in general) is somehow intricately related to atheism. It is not, I don't know where this presumption comes from. As far as I know, there has never been published a scientific paper, or theory that has it's sole purpose to disprove god.

I've said before that science does not disprove god, it simply does not consider god in any of the processes that lead to a theory. It does not care about god.
 
Science as science is good. When Science becomes an apostle for a non theistic religion, that is when much friction is introduced.
A scientist can, for example mix some copper sulphate solution with Ammonia solution and see nice colour change occur. He can then reason that this happens because of a process he calls 'Ion Exchange'. That is good......maybe in time he can find some practical use for that...but it is when he turns around and says that because he understands this stuff, he is qualified to say there can not be a God, everything is explained by 'ion exchange', that his science moves from knowledge to biased opinion.
Maybe not the cleverest argument ever, but I have yet to have my morning shot of caffeine...yawnnnnn.
I agree. When science starts to theorize the origin of man and the universe, then there is a problem.

The ONLY science I disprove of is evolution. Sure it makes sense, but it is far from being a literal proven truth.

When I look at the layers of rock in a mountainside, I don't say millions of years, I say a flood piled those layers together with all the fossils in it. When I see a beautiful bird in flight, I don't say look how awesome random chance is, I say look how awesome God is!

Both interpretations make logical sense, but Christians choose to side with God's word, because we know there is a God. God is only way life makes any logical sense. To believe in an all-powerful and intelligent God doesn't make you a child, it makes you a logical and spiritual human being.
 
You are presuming here that a scientist (or science in general) is somehow intricately related to atheism. It is not, I don't know where this presumption comes from. As far as I know, there has never been published a scientific paper, or theory that has it's sole purpose to disprove god.

I've said before that science does not disprove god, it simply does not consider god in any of the processes that lead to a theory. It does not care about god.
That is exactly why it will never except the truth! It will have to agree with evolution because that is the only thing that comes close to making sense of our world without God!

How much easier would it be if we could all just agree that we have an intelligent creator that we have long forsaken!
 
Back
Top