"Where is Noah?" Then and now.

[neo-x]

O, we have been over this before Leg

Further, there is the genetic evidence. If we track that genetic information of the female line, we should be able to track it all the way back to Eve, and so we do, we call her mitochondrial Eve. However, if we track the male line, there was not one, but two seperate times in history when there was one single male ancester of all men. The first was Adam, and the second was Noah, the ancestor of all 3 other men living, although their wives were daughters of three seperate women. As such, the male line genetic information for Adam would have been overwritten by that of Noah, and thus the date of this falsly named Y-chromasonal Adam (actually Noah) would read as considerably later than Eve. This is axactly what we do read.

see below from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Common fallacies

Not the only woman
One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time.[10][11] However nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below some tens of thousands;[10] there were many other women around at Eve's time with descendants alive today, but somewhere in all their lines of descent to present day people there is at least one male (and men do not pass on their mothers' mitochondrial DNA to their children, so the mitochondrial inheritance chain is broken). By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one line of descent to each person which is purely matrilineal.

Not a contemporary of "Adam"
Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, this "Eve" lived much earlier than this "Adam" – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier.[12]

Not the most recent ancestor shared by all humans

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). Since the mtDNA is inherited maternally and recombination is either rare or absent, it is relatively easy to track the ancestry of the lineages back to a MRCA; however this MRCA is valid only when discussing mitochondrial DNA. An approximate sequence from newest to oldest can list various important points in the ancestry of modern human populations:
The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents.[13]
The Identical ancestors point. Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans comes the time at which all humans who were alive either left no descendants or are common ancestors to all humans alive today. In other words, from this point back in time "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors". This is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve.[13]
"Y-Chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line common ancestor of all living men, was much more recent than Mitochondrial Eve, but is also likely to have been long before the Identical ancestors point.
Mitochondrial Eve, the most recent female-line common ancestor of all living people.

[Legatus]

From your post "I agree with the YEC reading on this point: the flood of Gen. 6–9 is a global/universal flood:, perhaps you should look at
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html titled The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says It Must be Local


Also, one of your objections is that there is no evidence of a 4,000 years ago, or a 10,000 years ago, flood.
The scientific evidence of Y-chromasonal Moses says that it happened 65,000 years ago at the very least, possibly long before that due to their long lifespans back then.


Both the idea of a global flood, which the bible actually denies, and the idea of one only that short a time ago, are straw man arguments. basically, you say that the bible says x, when the bible does not say x, then you say that it is wrong factually, and only "true" "mythically", because x is false factually. However, since the bible does not say x, who cares if x is wrong?


And about Moses, did Moses write Genesis? He must certainly have written the lions share of it, since, as I have already pointed out, some of it accuratly describes events that heppened before any humans ever existed. That cannot have been passed down by folklore, thus, the most likely candidate is Moses, who talked with God extensively in his tent on numerous occasions.


And what did Jesus say about Moses?
Mat 17:3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
The apostles saw Moses with their eyes, conclusion, there was a Moses, and he was so important that he could meet with Jesus himself. he must have done something to be that important, what do you suppose it was?


John 7:19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?"
John 7:22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath.
Mat 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
Mark 1:44 "See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them."
Mark 7:10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Here Jesus (and an apostle) acknowledges that it was Moses himself who gave the law, and that the patriarchs existed as real people who gave circumcision.


Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
John 5:45 "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.
John 5:46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
John 5:47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
Acts 3:22 For Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.
Jesus here acknowledges that Moses gave more than just the law, he also gave prophecy concerning Jesus.


John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
Here Jesus also says that the factual accounts written in Genesis about what Moses did are true.


Conclusion, those parts where you say that Moses did not write most of Genesis are shown largly false (except for a bit near the end, where Moses dies). The fact that many "biblical scholars" might agree to some other idea, which has not a shred of physical evidence to back it up, means nothing. When they actually have some hard archeological evidence to back it up, then they can talk, till then, it is just hot air. These are the same people who try to knock down the new testiment as well with there various imaginary documents with a letter attatched to them, always with the same problem, that not even one single scrap of evidence shows that such a document ever existed. When they try it with the new testiment, they run into the huge amount of letters people wrote with new testiment quotes in them in the first century, thus showing that it was not made up later as they say. They and their "textual critisism" (making stuff up without a shred of actual hard archeological evidence) has been caught in a lie before, why should I believe them again?


"since the narrative is firmly rooted in the cosmology and geography of the ancient near East (e.g. reference to the floodgates of heaven and fountains of the deep—physical barriers that kept the waters above and the waters below from overcoming the dry land), we should not apply this language to our own picture of the planet" You are right, it certainly does not apply to OUR picture of the planet. It DOES, however, apply to a picture of the planet in it's early planetery formation, which IS what genesis was talking about, right??. When it has just come together from infalling asteroids, moonlets, and COMETS, a lot of the water has been trapped underground under the next infalling rock that comes along. All those smashing rocks create a lot of heat, result, steam, and the force of the steam causes the water to gush out. This is described here Job 38:8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb. See that, "burst forth", sound like anything I just described? I have already described how water, right now, is held above your head without needing any "physical barrier". the ancient Hebrews would not know that, but we do, we do not need to repeat their error. Since BOTH of these are show to be factually true, scientifically true, there is no need for "the cosmology and geography of the ancient near East".

Sumerians cubits are irrelevent, there were no Sumerians, or a Sumeria, at least 65,000 years ago or probably long before that. Pitch to calk the boat could be present whatever time frame it was, the area most likely (see my previous post) is in the area where such things occur (just because there was no Sumeria doesn't mean it didn't happen near where Sumneria would eventually be much leter). Since the bible stated it was a local flood, one only needs room for local animals, specifically, take the animals God brings to the ark, and only those."In short, I don't think the language of Genesis (7 in particular) requires us to think that the flood was any more than 30–50 ft (depth of a catastrophic, but localized flood on the Mesopotamian valley)." See my earlier post showing this "http://www.livescience.com/10340-lost-c ... -gulf.html Lost Civilization May Have Existed Beneath the Persian Gulf. the mesopotamian valley is another straw man argument, the depth here is hundreds of feet, not 30. The description of the location of Eden, and the rivers described, makes this a much more likely place that mesopotania (which is really based of a 4,000 year ago timeline anyway, which the genetic data denies). Note that with that being the timeframe, the geology 65,000+ years ago, especially the rivers, could be very much different than today, made especially true by the ice age and much lower sea levels. You then go into numerology, numerology, why would God care about putting numerology here and then not bothering to tell anyone anything about it? That is just making stuff up. As for 40 days and nights of rain, and many more days of rising waters, well, when an ice age ends, and you are on the low ground that is being flooded, it will take a while for you to arrive at any actual ground that is now high enough for you to land on, since the former ground is now uinder the sea level. You won't see any mountains sticking up in all that rain, and you started down in what is now the bed of the persian gulf and so you won't see many mountains from down there (till you get washed to one).

After the flood, people would naturally be a bit more leary of low places. Also, they would have more time to multipy before any next ending of any ice ages, in fact, tens of thousands of years, since one just ended, they would have to wait for another one to start, and then end. Put those together and we see that there is no possibility that all the people will be whiped out again since by the next time such a thing is even possible, there are simply too many people spread out too far, and many on ground too high for that kind of flood to reach anyway. If they had not moved east of Eden as they did, and has settled on higher ground anyway, this wound't have happened. There is also a promise that the climactic disaster would not again happen, at least not to all mankind, the 40 days of rain may have been from some local anomely, like say vulcanism or a solar change or some such that caused such rain in that specific low lyimg area.

"I've taken out only the portions that are hypothesized to be from one of the authors (J, according to Friedman, 1997)" uxcuse me, authors, "J"?? Show me JUST ONE copy of this J document, come on, JUST ONE. NAME THE AUTHOR. The J document is FICTION. There is not the slightest actual evidence that it ever existed. Show me one and you can talk J document, till then, I will treat it as pure fiction. As for taken out portions, perhaps you should check out the warning given in the last verses of the last book of the bible against taking out anything from the bible Rev 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Perhaps you should think again about taking out any part of this just because of some purely fictitional "J document".

Well, I have read all of it. My conclusion, my original opinion stands, Noah is not "myth", "epic", or "literature". You say all the bible is "literature", I assue you have fallen, quite heavily, into the "higher critisism" camp", which supports this idea based only one their preconcieved notions that invents imaginary J documents without the slightest actual evidence. I see a lack of scientific knowledge here (such as planetery formation and clouds), I see several logical fallicies of several kinds. I see you making conclusions based off of absolutly no evidence at all (such as "J documents"), while ignoring other evidence (such as Y-chormasonal Adam (actually Noah) and mitochondrial Eve).
I suggest that you rethink your position, since there IS actual physical and scientific evidence,and thus your whole idea, that parts of the bible are not scientifically factual, is false and therefore uneeded.

[neo-x]

The conclusion is that this 4,000 year timeframe is false, shown so both by science and the bible. And why would this idea then persist? See the quote below.

Depends upon your interpretation, but again, the earth is 4 billion years old. Humans as in Adam and Eve, well they fall close enough in the range of the orginal article.

[Legatus]

Neo X, your 'scientists believe" stuff is not evidence. Scientists belive that there were some thousands of individuals besides mitochondrial Eve, but the actual genetic EVIDENCE is of only one woman. It is the same for y-chromasonal Adam (actually Noah). The scientists can show that there COULD BE several thousand others, but they cannot show evidence that there WERE, only that their COULD BE. Since when was "belieft" science? That is not the scientific method, which invloves experiemts to show it is either probably true or definatly false, it is instead the pre scientific method, saying that the old dead famous greek guy said it was true, and so it must be true.

Scientists also beleive that to get this genetic information that points to mitochondrial Eve and y-chromsasonal Adam (Noah), there MUST have been two "bottlenecks" of the human race, when there were indead at most several thosuands of individuals. Can you tell me what these bottlenecks were? The bible describes two, one when the first man and woman were here (two total is a pretty sever bottleneck), from which we would expect to get genetic evidnece for one woman ancestor, which we do. The second, the flood of Noah, would overwrite the genetic evidence of the earlier Adam, and so we would expect that y-chromsasonal Adam (Noah) would show a later date than Eve, and that is exactly what we do find.

So, even if you "beleive" what these scientists tell you they "beleive" (but cannot actually SHOW evidence of), you still have two bottlenecks where the human race was reduced to only some thousands of individuals. How exactly do YOU explain them?

Google for bottleneck and y-chromosonal Adam gets 20,700 results, heres one http://www.dubage.com/API/ThePolymath/1 ... 1ebam.html Note the rediculous lenghts it goes to to try and avoid the fact that there is a biblical solution to the problem of bottlenecks. This is just the first one on the list.
The controversy rages over why this population as it grew didn't interbreed to any significant degree with any other populations. It has been very difficult to generate a plausible explanation for why this population didn't interbreed with the indigenes. The first explanation that got press was that they simply moved into a new area, took over and slaughtered all the locals. It has been suggested that a plague, asteroidal impact or climatological disaster may have wiped out all other humans. It has also been suggested that somehow this population had become genetically incompatible with the rest of humanity. In other words, every mechanism put forth to explain the genetic evidence was a bit far fetched.

Far fetched, thats the word for it. There is a simple explaination why the humans did not breed with any other "hominides", simple, there weren't any other hominides. There was Adam and Eve, and that was IT, later, there were 8 total people on the ark, and that was IT. The bible says so clearly, it says that when looking for a mate for Adam (actually, just giving him the birds and the bees talk by example of actual birds and bees that came in male and female) that there was no mate found corresponding to Adam. Another hominide would have been such a mate, therefor it says there were no others who could mate with Adam, and thus no other hominides. And that leaves two time periods, one earlier one with mitochondrial Eve , and a later one for y-chrosmosonal Adam (Noah), and no other hominieds to mate with, and thus at most some thousands of human ancestors in the entire world tops.

The reason these scientists do not beleive this is because they insist on the existance of these hominides. To do otherwise would point them straight at the bible and the clearly describes non evolutionary creation of Adam and then Eve. They don't want that, so they make up imaginary hominides that for some reason did not breed with humans, even though they could and, if they existed, certainly would. So, to deny that there must have been two very real "bottlenecks" of the human race, when there could have been first one single woman on the entire earth (Eve), and later one single man who was during his time the ancestor of all other men (Noah, ancestor of Shem, Ham, and Japheth) is, to use their phrase "far fatched".

If the evidence points one way, REAL science goes with the evidence, it does not make up far fetched explainations to try and get around it.

So I will ask you again, what, exactly, where these two bottlenecks, if they were not as described in the bible?

Note, your user info says "theistic evolution", beleive it or not, I also beleive in theistic evolution, sort of. The bible says quite clearly that God said let the earth bring for grass (and all other plants), therfore, it must have been an earthly process, ie. a natural one. Scientists have shown (although many do not like it) that doing that from pure random chance is impossible, thus we see that science agrees that for evolution to occure, it must be planned by God, which makes Rom 1:20 true, since evolution really does show that there must be a God, exactly as Romans says. HOWEVER, the bible very very clearly does NOT say the same thing for humans, there, two specific methods of creation are specified, even to using the word fashioned which was not used for all the other plants and animals, thus showing specifically that this is different and that we should notice. The questions then are:

Do you beleive the genesis account of the creation of Adam and Eve?

Do you beleive the bible is true at all?

If early man slowly evolved from non sentience to sentience, at what point would God consider them responsible, and send them to heaven or hell depending on their beleifs and actions? I mean, what exactly is god to DO with a half sentient hominid, make a half heaven for it? Is heaven full of small brained hominides? So how would you deal with this problem if you were God? When you can answer that, then you will begin to uinderstand. And there is really only one possible answer.

[neo-x]

Leg, the question isn't do I believe it or not, the question is does your theory carries proof, if yes, then what is the nature of that proof and how it is manifested. I have discussed with you on previous posts as well regarding this issue. however, if it it is going to be an argument then let me ask you. Do you personally think that the creation account in Genesis 1 includes dinosaurs as well or not?

[Grizz_1]

Thanks for all the reply's But I remained unconvinced. I will leave the science to the scientists. Science changes over time (as it should) but the Word never changes so I'll stick with that.

One problem I have is that e artz ( the earth) is used from Gen 1:1 to Gen 6:12 tweleve times. All 12 times its used is in reference to the WHOLE earth. I don't think after reading those 12 passages anyone can say its not. Now if you want to translate it to (the land) that does not change the fact that it is still referring to the WHOLE land in those 12 passages (the entire planet). Now we get to Noah and in its 13th use, Gen 6:13, you seem to want to change it to mean locally. That (to me) makes no sense. You keep it's meaning local all through the ensuing flood. But when we get to the end Gen 9:2 its obviously back to a global meaning. Because it would be quite silly for that passage to be local. And in Gen 9:11 where God promises not to destroy the earth with a flood ever again, is he just talking about not flooding a local area... I think not. We see local floods all the time massive local floods. Did God Lie to us? I think not! I'll add Gen 9:13, the rainbow promise, We all see it....if not a global flood why would we see them?

I guess I'm saying is I believe God is consistent. He has to be.

[RickD]

Thanks for all the reply's But I remained unconvinced. I will leave the science to the scientists. Science changes over time (as it should) but the Word never changes so I'll stick with that.

One problem I have is that e artz ( the earth) is used from Gen 1:1 to Gen 6:12 tweleve times. All 12 times its used is in reference to the WHOLE earth. I don't think after reading those 12 passages anyone can say its not. Now if you want to translate it to (the land) that does not change the fact that it is still referring to the WHOLE land in those 12 passages (the entire planet). Now we get to Noah and in its 13th use, Gen 6:13, you seem to want to change it to mean locally. That (to me) makes no sense. You keep it's meaning local all through the ensuing flood. But when we get to the end Gen 9:2 its obviously back to a global meaning. Because it would be quite silly for that passage to be local. And in Gen 9:11 where God promises not to destroy the earth with a flood ever again, is he just talking about not flooding a local area... I think not. We see local floods all the time massive local floods. Did God Lie to us? I think not! I'll add Gen 9:13, the rainbow promise, We all see it....if not a global flood why would we see them?

I guess I'm saying is I believe God is consistent. He has to be.

Grizz, I don't know the 12 times you refer to, but if you post the verses, we can go over each on its own. Genesis 6:12, doesn't demand a reference to the entire globe. "God looked upon the land, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the land." If humanity was limited to one area of the earth, then God wouldn't need to flood the entire globe to destroy humanity. Genesis 6:13, as well, doesn't demand a reference to the entire globe. Just the entire land that held humanity at the time.

I think not. We see local floods all the time massive local floods. Did God Lie to us?

Read Genesis 9:15 to see what the inference is here. There have been many local floods, but humanity has now encompassed most of the globe. So, humanity couldn't be destroyed by any single flood. So, God's promise still stands.

I agree that God's word never changes, only humanity's interpretation of it. For evidence of this, study geocentricity, and you will see how science has helped us translate the bible in that instance.
There are many reasons why I changed my belief from YEC and a global flood to OEC and a local flood. I suggest reading some of Hugh Ross' books to get a real background of OEC. After I believed in OEC, I went back and read some YEC resources, to see what they said in light of what my new beliefs were. I was stunned by the dishonesty of the YEC authors that I read. They argued against their false ideas of OEC. Not what OECs really believe. I then realized that if these Christian YECs(not all YECs, just the prominent ones that I encountered)were dishonest with other Christians, then what would keep them from creating a straw man argument to argue evolution.
I have no problem with anyone believing YEC, if after examining the evidence HONESTLY, you still believe YEC. I just think OEC, interprets the scientific evidence, and the bible much more consistently than YEC or evolution.

[Legatus]

Leg, the question isn't do I believe it or not, the question is does your theory carries proof, if yes, then what is the nature of that proof and how it is manifested. I have discussed with you on previous posts as well regarding this issue. however, if it it is going to be an argument then let me ask you. Do you personally think that the creation account in Genesis 1 includes dinosaurs as well or not?

Short answer, yes, although not in those words, simply because hebrews did not have a word for dinosaurs, and of course had never seen one. The first place "dinosaurs" are mentioned is here Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." What, you say, I see no dinsoaurs here! Nope, but you see birds, who aere once, long ago, dinosaurs. God made the sea critters and the disnosaurs befor ehe made mammels and such, and since this is a book written to humans, who have never seen dinosaurs and so not relate to them (dinosaurs do not effect our lives), then God wrote down what DOES effect our lives, birds.

God also very specifically mentioned dinosaurs here:
Job 40:15 "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.
Job 40:16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly!
Job 40:17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
Job 40:18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.
Job 40:19 He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

And it goes on like this for some time.
Some specifics, first, "behemoth" is the hebrew word for elehpant, this word is used because hebrew does not have a word for dinosaur (hebrew only has some 8,000 or so words, one word must often stand for several). The description is clearly a brontosaur type critter (Sauropoda), a tail like a ceder (and thus clearly not an elephant), and later accuratly describes it's eating habits, a critter that eats in rivers (which help support it's huge body). It also mentions that it's bones are hollow tubes, like birds, which was nessissary as otherwise it would be too heavy (and the same for birds). Later, one of the plated dinosaur types (Ankylosauria or another kind of Sauropoda) is mentioned, with shield like plates on it's back. The language gets kind of poetic at times, but we clearly see (from what we know now) two different kinds of dinosaurs we know today (or one plated sauropoda, of which there are a few kinds).
These dinosaurs, specifically the sauropoda and others, had hollow bones and air sacs like birds.

. Now you (or others) might say "but this is evolution, it is evil/bad/wrong/disproven" Actually, it is stated in the bible here Gen 1:11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. God stated "let the land" or "let the earth" do it, it is NOT stated that God did it in the same was that God did for mankind, where God specifically "fashioned" (different word) both the man and the woman. Since God did not specify HOW God did it, we cannot presume to say. However, God did say that it was an earthly process (the word land can also be translated earth) which suggests strongly that God did not do it magically (although he could have, as he did for humans) but let the earth do it, by evolution (abiogenesis to be exact). And now you might say "evolution is impossible", and you would be right, if you accept the definition of evolution as occuring by chance. However, to do that, you must prior to that say that there is no God, who might interfere with chance. However, if you look here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTS5ZVuK6Jw or here http://www.youtube.com/user/IDquest#g/a (both long but very interesting videos), you discover what we now call the anthropologic principle, where for evolution or life to even be possible is so very unlikly as to be essentially impossible BY RANDOM CHANCE (which assumes that there is no God), and for the universe to be exactly like it is (allowing carbon based lifeforms) is so very unlikly that "Roger Penrose's probability for low entropy calculated on the order of 10*10*123 (10 to the power 10 to the power 123, 2 exponents). That is as close to infinity-to-1 probability as any number can get, and again, that is irrespective of the number of universes." This number is so large that one needs billions of universes with each proton, neutron, and electron in those entire universes with a zero written on it to have enough zeros to put in this number. That is just to make carbon based lifeforms POSSIBLE, it still does not take into account the extremely complicated construction that even the simplest life must have to even be viable, or the various extremely unlikly events that must all happen at one place and at one time for this to happen.

Thus God implies in Gen 1:11 that he did this by an earthly, ie natural, process, and states in no uncertain terms in Rom 1:20 that "what has been seen", the natural world, "from the foundation of the earth" (as seen in Genesis) shows Gods attributes. And so it does, for God to do such a thing, to first arrainge for the big bang to produce "this preposterous universe" http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/dis ... ?ST_ID=255 , which to do so without an infinite intelligence to design it is 10*10*123 unlikely (as unlikely as you can get), and then to arrainge for life to not only be possible, but to actually happen (chance against it currently unknown, but no one in any labratory has gotten close despite decades of trying) is actually much "harder" for God to do that just "cheating" and doing amiricle, ie breaking natural law (which Jesus shows was trivially easy). Thus the universe, and specifically both the fact that life actually can and does exist here, is so extremly impossible that it can ONLY happen if a God of infinite intelligence planned and did it, exactly as stated in Romans. Thus, to bet, as many scientists do, that life can arrainge to happen burely by random chance is to bet the odds of 1 agaisnt the odds that there is a God, which is 10*10*123 times whatever number the odds for life to actually essemble in the correct form are 9another very big number). Betting agaist there being a God is the longest odds ever known, and then some. The only possible conclusion, if evolution is true, there must be a God, MUST BE. Thus, it doesn't matter if you beleive in evolution or not, either way, there MUST BE a God.

And as for "the nature of that proof and the way it is manifested" for my theory of Noah, specifically for the genetic information of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosonal Noah, it cannot be absolutly proved that there was one woman and one later man scientifically, simply because you can't absolutly prove anything scientifically (although you can often disprove something). However, while you cannot prove that there was just one woman and later one man, the evidence leans very strongly in that direction, since the only actual evidence we have of ancestors shows just that and nothing more. If we take that genetic evidnece and then read the bible, where an actual witness, God, describes the events (to the author) that took place, we see Eve and Noah, which match the genetic information exactly. We can thus say scientifically that both Eve and Noah are scientifically very possible, although not certain, which is about as good as science ever gets (you want certaintly, you have to be God). The genetic evidence is, however, quite certain about at least two major bottlenecks of humanity, where there were two time periods when the human race was reduced to numbers which, scientifically speaking, could have been as low as one woman total on the earth (Eve), and one later man who was ancestor of all other men alive at that time on the earth (Noah) occording to the actual genetic information which is all we have. The bible speaks also of two bottlenecks, one first for the woman, and a later one for the man. We thus see that the bible agrees with the scientific evidence for two major and very severe bottlenecks. Once again, science shows that the bible could be true, although it cannot say that it definatly is (as it can if evolution is true). Currently, the bibles account is the only reasonable one that fits the evidence, scientists have had to agree that their attempts to provide another explaination are 'far fetched" (frankly rediculous).

Thus you can say it is not "proven", however, the chances of it being true (that there is a God and the bible is true) are:
10*10*123 for carbon based lifeforms to even be possible in this universe.
times
Whatever number is the chance of the various molecules needed by life to form all in one place AND essemble themnselves together corectly, INCLUDING some method like DNA to store coded information for reproduction PLUS the exact correct coding on that DNA.
times
Whatever tha chances are ("far fetched") for there to be two major bottlenecks that leave genetic information that points to just one woman and one later man, exactly as described in the bible.
I would not want to bet against odds like this, "proof" or no "proof".

Ok, I answered yours, now your turn. I will ask just one question, to make it simple (otherwise responses get tangled):
If early man slowly evolved from non sentience to sentience, at what point would God consider them responsible, and send them to heaven or hell depending on their beleifs and actions? I mean, what exactly is god to DO with a half sentient hominid, make a half heaven for it? Is heaven full of small brained hominides? So how would you deal with this problem if you were God? When you can answer that, then you will begin to uinderstand. And there is really only one possible answer.

[Legatus]

BTW, there is one major difference between the God planned evolution (and biogenesis) I posted about here and that believed by many scientists. The scientists (not all) believe that this all happned by random chance, the odds against that I posted. What I propose is, say, for instance, we are talking a God planned genetic mutation in some critter (which is reletively easy compared to abiogenesis or making aboigenesis even possible), and let us further say that that mutation is caused by the genes being hit by one single cosmic ray (a simplistic scenerio, but barely possible). There are several ways it can happen, it can happen by random chance, the odds are long that a cosmic ray will arrive at just the right time and place to achieve this, this is why there is the whole Intelligent Design movement. Then, there is the common "theistic evolution", God does the mutation by a miracle, breaking natural laws, a God who can walk on water can do this easily. However, you then have a problem, why take millions or even billions of years to do what you could do by miracle in seconds? And then there is the last possibility, God does it WITHOUT breaking any natural laws. Even for God, that is doing it "the hard way". It would take infinite intelligence to do this, to plan out an infinite number of possibilities, and then create a universe where there exists this cosmic ray which will arrive just at the time and place God desires to cause th desired mutaion (say some part of dinosaur to bird mutation). Even for God, that one takes some doing, hence the millions and millions of years nessissary to pull it off. I call this a "Natural Miracle", where not one natural law is broken, yet the event that happens is so extremely unlikly that it could only happen if a being of infinite intelligence planned it. It is rather as if God, by pure skill, could throw dice that bounce around the crap table and come up whatever number God calls out, without needing to cheat and break the natural laws effecting the dice, simply with infinite intelligence knowing exactly how to throw the dice to acheive the desired number.

And thus we see that if evolution is true (or even possible in this universe), there must be a being of literally infinite intelligence. We can tell more about the attributes of this being. If it has infinite intelligence, and exists outside of time (anywhere outside this material universe is outside of time) as such a being MUST do to be infinitely intelligent (since being part of this material univers would make this being capable of only finite intellince, as our computers are only capable of fiinite computing power), then this being could tell us the future, do prophecy, as we see in the bible, prophecies that we know were written down before the event happned and then happened later just as prophecied. Also, such a being would need nothing from us, having no physical needs, and such a being would not need any help to do anything ever, and could not be hurt by use, not having a physical form to be hurt, and not being inside this physical universe anyway. So, in what earthly religion is there a being who needs noting from us, needs no help from us, and which we cannot hurt? Christianity. In Christianity, God does not need us to do something (ceremonies or works or suchlike), in all other religions, you must do something to make God acept you, in Chrisianity, Christ does that. And in Chrisianity we see the second thing, God cannot be hurt by us, and so cannot fear us, and fear creates hate, and so God does not hate us, and so God is love. This explains why God is so interested in us having love, we do have needs and so we fight over things we covet, we can be hurt and so we hate and hurt each other, but if we are to live with God we must at least understand and have some love ourselves, so God has gone out of his way to tell us about it and to demonstrate it (such as that whole aJesus thing, and creating us a universe suited to us for free). But, you might ask, why all these rules? Well, if God is our creator, God knows what is best for us, what works or not, therefor we would expect that God would make such rules as would keep us from hurting ourselves or each other (physically, metally, or spiritually). Also, God created us with free will (goes with being sentient), and so we can choose to be with God and be like God or not, and if God values free will ( Mat 23:37 Jesus wanted something but "you were not willing", thus Jesus allowed them free will), then if we choose to reject God, and the way of love which is Gods chief characteristic, God will not force himself on us, and so we are removed from God AND all the good things that only the creator can create for us, hence hell.

And thus we see that for this universe to be capable of supporting life, and for evolution to be possible and then happen, there must be a God of infinite intelligence, who needs nothing from us and thus will eccept us only based on what He himself does, cannot be hurt by us and is therefore love, and therefor can only be the Chrsitian God. In short, this universe, and evolution (of everything but mankind) says :Rom 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse", for we can see by it "his eternal power and divine nature".

That is rather a different kettle of fish than the usual "evolution proves that there is no God" taught nowadays, which is the exact opposite of the truth. Evolution teaches us that there absolutly MUST be a God, and tells us exactly WHO it is.

[Legatus]

Oh, one other thing, Job shows that God thinks dinosaurs are cool, just like we do That may be one reason (other than making birds) why they existed, God just thinks they are cool. The plated brontosaurous type critter describes in Job could be a Titanosaur, the largest, and therefore the coolest , type, as it is written that God said Job 40:19 He ranks first among the works of God. Some of these were not only the largest critters ever, but also had plates like shields on their backs as also seen in Job Job 41:15 His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together.

From skin impressions found with the fossils, it has been determined that the skin of many titanosaur species was armored with a small mosaic of small, bead-like scales around a larger scale[citation needed]. One species, Saltasaurus, has even been discovered with bony plates, like the Ankylosaurus.

[neo-x]

2 years ago I was saying the same thing that you are saying, I was in fact teaching at the Bible college, the book of genesis very close to this. But now I have been thinking about some of the problems this presents.

For example, if as you say dinosaurs were made when birds were made and they got extinct in the same day then the point of showing Job and not Moses become contradictory. first when God is talking to Job, he tells Job to consider the behemoth, job could only do that if it could see the creature and know about it, much less God telling him and he would not understand. and now you may say that he could understand because God could tell him in detail. But then why not in the genesis account, if God wrote about dinosaur in Job, he could have easily told Moses to write down the descriptions of dinosaurs as well. We know that God has infinite knowledge and since God knew for a fact that human knowledge will increase with time, he could have easily left those descriptions in the genesis account as he did it in Job. I think that these are not reference to dinosaurs at all.

Secondly,the concept that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is equally problematic, unless you have read Jurrassic park and its sequal novel and agree with Micheal Crichton . Also see below links

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/dinobird.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/poll.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news7112.html

But even if we agree that dinosaurs and birds are SOMEHOW related than there is another problem, not all dinosaurs were Avian in nature. There were different groups and hundreds of species. Sharks and crocodiles were also in the Triassic (before Jurassic there were the Archosaurs, meaning before even dinosaurs arose in Jurassic) but they adapted one way or the other and survived.

The Hebrew word in genesis means giant sea creatures, not dinosaurs. You're using the same logic English translators did when they translated the big fish from Jonah's story in the N.T as whale. Just because there is no word for whale in Hebrew of the time, the word used could be for any large fish. But simple implication stated that as far by our knowledge whale was the biggest fish thus the first English translators, translated it as whale, by implication. This is not a very good way, because it presumes which can not be verified. And I would humbly suggest that you also consider you approach with some caution. Just because it fits your theory does not mean it must be that way.

Ok, I answered yours, now your turn. I will ask just one question, to make it simple (otherwise responses get tangled):
If early man slowly evolved from non sentience to sentience, at what point would God consider them responsible, and send them to heaven or hell depending on their beleifs and actions? I mean, what exactly is god to DO with a half sentient hominid, make a half heaven for it? Is heaven full of small brained hominides? So how would you deal with this problem if you were God? When you can answer that, then you will begin to understand. And there is really only one possible answer.

Why would you presume that I think Adam evolved from non sentient to sentient?

But as for your question when did God decide? is when Simple when he made Adam and the previous homo species were either extinct or wiped out. As they were either rebellious, which would make sense, as again in the flood of Noah, God destroyed all life. Either through a global flood or ice age, call it whatever you like, but Gen1:2 says, earth was filled with water. It basically depends if you are using the account of genesis as the first account of all creation or God recreating what was already created, created earlier by God himself and then later destroyed.

What happened to those people is hard to say, whether they ended up in heaven or hell, the same way we do not know what happens to people who never ever heard about Christ and died babies that were born dead. Abortions, people who are born with retardation or mental impairment ....there is no absoluteness that I agree with you, there is no absolute proof of a lot of things.

[Legatus]

The answer to the Job not knowing about disosaurs is simple, Job also did not know about many of the things God describes to Job. He did not know about the creation of the stars which is in Job, he also did not know about the early earth with it's complete cloud cover and thick darkness described right after the stars, as well as the sea being then kept in bounds (appearence of dry land, wrinkling of the crust). Since we know that at least two things in Job are things where Job had never seen them, why not a third?

As for the birds from dinosaurs, poeple have carried over from the now discredited Young Earth Creationism the basic idea that started all that, a trick of Satan to tell them that they MUST do anything to make evolution look false, otherwise it will be "proved" that there is no God and evolution did it all. We now know different though, evolution is not even possible in this universe without an extreme fine tuning of this universe, and that does not even consider that random chance does not seem to be able to create life from non life, even if that fine tuning is there, which shows that evolution (and abiogenesis) is also impossible if there is no God. Therefore the idea that we MUST do anything we can to stop the idea of evolution is a lie of Satan, the exact opposite of the truth. The two options Satan presented are evolution being true and God untrue, or evolution being untrue and God true, that is the logical fallacy of a faulty dilemma, when there is another option, evolution is true and that presents physical proof that there must be a God, as stated in Rom 1:20. Thus, anti-evolutionists (pretty much all Christians have been fooled by this) will come up with any excuse, however improbable, to say that birds did not come from dinosaurs.

It is irrelevent if some dinosaurs did not evolve into birds, it only takes one dinosaur to do so. It is irrelevent if it is difficult for dinosaurs to evolve into birds, or if the resulting birds are quite dissimilar to the dinosaurs after enough mutaions, it is not difficult for a God of infinite intellignece to plan it out. That is the second faulty dillemma, assuming that evolution only happenes by random chance, not by a plan of God, with birds as part of that plan.

The link to the poll is irrelevent, the simple pictures in the poll tell nothing, such as whether some of those critters had hollow bones or not, or other bird characteristics. It is irrelevent that birds are not dinosaurs, of course they are not, there were many carefully planned changes made to dinosaurs to arrive at birds. You must put God into the picture, when you do, everything changes. Random chance cannot do it, it is a faulty dilemma (what is that, 3 now?) to assume that there is either random chance or miracle, when there is a third option, planned mutation by natural means (such as a carefully aimed cosmic ray timed to arrive just right after a journey of billions of years that creates a mutation). And the last link is also irrelevent, you can always find some scientist to back up something, or some website, especially when the data involves millions of years old fossiles, sometimes fragmentary, sometimes few in number. I could find many many websites and scientists who would say the exact opposite. However, regardless of what evidence we have or do not have, most scientists say birds came from dinosaurs, and the bible also says so, since it says birds came before mammals and that only leaves dinosaurs as a possibility. When we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. If God says so, and most scientists say so, I would say the vote is in, birds came from some kind of dinosaur.

There is not the slightest evidence in the bible that there ever were any people before Adam, who was said to be the first that sinned. If he was the first that sinned, then there could have been none before him that sinned and were whiped out. Also, remember that Adam could have arrived a very very long time ago, we may not have any fossiles of the pre flood people since there was this flood, see, that whiped them out, and they were at that time limited only to that one small area (relativly speaking) east of Eden and thus all their fossiles could have been destroyed or buried under the sea bed. The bible also gives no dates for Adam. It is thus impossible to date Adam, and from that, imposible to say that such and such fassile resembles Adam or those early people written of in the bible. In addition, the fossile records seem to have changed with more discoveries, such that the human family tree now more resembles a bush, with mankind sudenly springing up out of nowhere (the old family trees found in textbooks are woefully behind the times and not updated with the latest findings). many of the old "hominids" have since been discovered to be just another monkey or ape, with far smaller brains than we thought they had (much of paleantology is taking a few small bone fragments and building a whole skeleton out of it that is largly guesswork, which later turns out to be false guesses). In short, we simply do not have enough solid evidence to say when Adam was, and we thus cannot tell when he was in regards to such human or humanoid fossiles as we know of (or think we know of), and thus we cannot say that there was anyone before Adam since we do not know when Adam was.

Also, you must remember that most people do not want there to be a God. If the fossile record says there is a God, people will do anything they can to cover that up, ignore or alter those fossiles, or, when constructing a whole skeleton from a few small bone fragments and a lot of guesswork, confining those guesses to those that fit the pre concieved and wished for notion that there is no God and that we are merely evolved hominids. Humans have FAR more stake in this then with other fossiles, and so will bring far more emotions and prejudices to a possible "humanoid" fossile than they will to say a dinosaur fossile. Their often clear and stated desire that there be no God and that we are merely evolved hominids makes their fossiles, made of a few small bone fragments and a lot of imagination, hightly suspect.

[Legatus]

BTW, to chemostrat, the original poster, the idea that the bible says that the sky is a solid dome, and that therefore the bible is factually wrong, and that therefore you should see it as "myth" instead of simple facts is dealt with here The Bible Teaches That the Heavens Were a Solid Dome, Embedded with Stars?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... avens.html

It goes into great detail about exactly what the bible does say, and does not say, in the original language. Here is some of it:
The firmament
The main reason why skeptics have said the Bible endorses dome cosmology comes from the King James version (KJV) translation of the Bible. Here is the KJV translation of Genesis 1:6-8:

And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. (Genesis 1:6-8)

The word "firmament" implies a solid material, coming from the Latin word "firmamentum," from Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. The Latin word firmamentum has the meaning of a "support," or "prop." However, the original Hebrew word, raqia,8 which Jerome translated into the Latin word firmamentum, is not nearly as specific. Raqia comes from the Hebrew verb raqa, which means "beat," "stamp," "beat out" and "spread out." Occurring 11 times in the Old Testament, raqa has the meaning to "stamp one's feet" (twice), stamp something with the feet (once), spreading metal (four times), spreading out the earth (three times), and spreading the sky or the clouds (once).9 So, the verb raqa does not necessarily refer to the beating out of a solid object, but to a spreading out process, whether the object be solid or not.

Raqia
The Hebrew noun raqia is used 17 times in the Bible. Eleven of those instances occur in 7 verses from Genesis 1.10 Five instances of raqia occur in Ezekiel's visions11 - once referring to the expanse (or extent) of the angels' wings and the other four referring to something that appeared to be like a gleaming crystal, although it is never identified as being a solid object. Two others occur in the Psalms,12 once referring to the expanse as described in Genesis (also written by Moses), and the second referring to the mighty expanse of God's power.12 So, raqia itself does not always refer to a solid object.

Genesis 1:8 says that God Himself defines what the raqia is, saying "God called the expanse heaven." So, the so-called firmament is nothing more than heaven itself and does not comprise a separate structure. This fact is further emphasized in Genesis 1:20, where God says, "... let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."10 Obviously, birds cannot fly through a solid structure, clearly indicating that raqia is not a solid object

This all shows that the original idea, that the bible is not factually correct in calling the sky a solid dome, is just a straw man argument. The bible never said that, and so to say it is not factual is to say something that has no connection with what the bible actually says.

[neo-x]

He did not know about the creation of the stars which is in Job, he also did not know about the early earth with it's complete cloud cover and thick darkness described right after the stars, as well as the sea being then kept in bounds (appearence of dry land, wrinkling of the crust). Since we know that at least two things in Job are things where Job had never seen them, why not a third?

How do you know Job did not know about stars or clouds? Further more, as I pointed earlier if God writes here with descriptions, why not is the genesis account, unless God was telling Job what he already knew, in that sense your interpretation of the word Behemoth would be rendered null.

As for the birds from dinosaurs, poeple have carried over from the now discredited Young Earth Creationism the basic idea that started all that, a trick of Satan to tell them that they MUST do anything to make evolution look false, otherwise it will be "proved" that there is no God and evolution did it all. We now know different though, evolution is not even possible in this universe without an extreme fine tuning of this universe, and that does not even consider that random chance does not seem to be able to create life from non life, even if that fine tuning is there, which shows that evolution (and abiogenesis) is also impossible if there is no God. Therefore the idea that we MUST do anything we can to stop the idea of evolution is a lie of Satan, the exact opposite of the truth. The two options Satan presented are evolution being true and God untrue, or evolution being untrue and God true, that is the logical fallacy of a faulty dilemma, when there is another option, evolution is true and that presents physical proof that there must be a God, as stated in Rom 1:20. Thus, anti-evolutionists (pretty much all Christians have been fooled by this) will come up with any excuse, however improbable, to say that birds did not come from dinosaurs.

Are you saying the all of YEC is false? also why are you so bent on proving evolution? I understand it could happen but did God use it specifically? That is not based in the Bible, neither does it imply. You are basing it on assumption of the idea that evolution must have occurred. Also the day sequence again in genesis is not literal, Genesis one seems more like a summary account than a literal one. As chapter 2 signifies.

The original question about dinosaurs was meant to argue that - In my pov, genesis 1 does not talk about dinosaurs at all, which only makes me think that they must have gone extinct before day 1. In that sense, the account of genesis starts not at the first creation but at a recreation. also I imagine God would not have been sitting idle in heaven from eternity. do you think that eternity started when earth did? what was God doing before that? I tend to think that God is creating all the time, his glory manifested. I highly suspect that we are not the first world he created. of course I have no evidence to back this up. The possibility however remains. God is there from eternity, I do not think we(our earth) are the first life he created.

There is not the slightest evidence in the bible that there ever were any people before Adam, who was said to be the first that sinned. If he was the first that sinned, then there could have been none before him that sinned and were whiped out. Also, remember that Adam could have arrived a very very long time ago, we may not have any fossiles of the pre flood people since there was this flood, see, that whiped them out, and they were at that time limited only to that one small area (relativly speaking) east of Eden and thus all their fossiles could have been destroyed or buried under the sea bed. The bible also gives no dates for Adam. It is thus impossible to date Adam, and from that, imposible to say that such and such fassile resembles Adam or those early people written of in the bible. In addition, the fossile records seem to have changed with more discoveries, such that the human family tree now more resembles a bush, with mankind sudenly springing up out of nowhere (the old family trees found in textbooks are woefully behind the times and not updated with the latest findings). many of the old "hominids" have since been discovered to be just another monkey or ape, with far smaller brains than we thought they had (much of paleantology is taking a few small bone fragments and building a whole skeleton out of it that is largly guesswork, which later turns out to be false guesses). In short, we simply do not have enough solid evidence to say when Adam was, and we thus cannot tell when he was in regards to such human or humanoid fossiles as we know of (or think we know of), and thus we cannot say that there was anyone before Adam since we do not know when Adam was.

Please tell me what is solid evidence? the reason, we have been labeled in believing myths is because no solid evidence exists for a lot of genesis. i told you one before that the verse in Romans you quote most often was not written to uphold genesis, in fact it is a verse that answers a theological question, not a scientific one.

yes there is no evidence in Bible about pre-existing humans/humanoids. but there also is not evidence for dinosaurs as well (what you are claiming as evidence is an idea, not proof, you must see the difference between an idea and a proof), a lot of extinct creatures, the bible does not say remotely about evolution, natural selection or adaptation. it does not cite great mammoths or ice ages. the bible does not explain, stars, black holes, gravity, universe, solar system, yet these things exist. This same logic of yours held the catholic church to officially give scientific declarations in the name of God and were proven false over and over again.

Also, you must remember that most people do not want there to be a God. If the fossile record says there is a God, people will do anything they can to cover that up, ignore or alter those fossiles, or, when constructing a whole skeleton from a few small bone fragments and a lot of guesswork, confining those guesses to those that fit the pre concieved and wished for notion that there is no God and that we are merely evolved hominids. Humans have FAR more stake in this then with other fossiles, and so will bring far more emotions and prejudices to a possible "humanoid" fossile than they will to say a dinosaur fossile. Their often clear and stated desire that there be no God and that we are merely evolved hominids makes their fossiles, made of a few small bone fragments and a lot of imagination, hightly suspect.

Sounds like you are more defensive than normal. What you have been repeatedly calling a "lie of Satan" to anyone who does not adhere to your understanding of Genesis one - in posts all over this forum, I think it is called discernment, at least for my part. I am not assuming evidence, I always said, that it is a possibility, it is however you on the other hand who is being insistent about your ideas and imagination.

btw...Gen 1:1 mention the word "shamayim" which is understood as sky but the word could also mean, a loft, a tent, a covering. Since in the time of Moses the concept of dome would not be present, neither a word for it.

The Bible was not intended as a primitive science manual that presented rudimentary scientific facts that would be verifiable at a later date when science caught up.

[Legatus]

How do you know Job did not know about stars or clouds? Further more, as I pointed earlier if God writes here with descriptions, why not is the genesis account, unless God was telling Job what he already knew, in that sense your interpretation of the word Behemoth would be rendered null.

Here is the passage I was referring to (actually not about creating stars but about creating the earth):
Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:
Job 38:2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?
Job 38:3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.
Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
Job 38:5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?
Job 38:6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone--
Job 38:7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?
Note what it says, "where were you", clearly, he is asking Job if Job was there when God did that, the answer was, Job was not there. Therefor in this case God is clearly talking about something that Job did not see.

About clouds and the sea, immediatly after this:
Job 38:8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,
Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness,
Job 38:10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place,
Job 38:11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'?
Clearly, it talks of WHEN God did this, which means WHEN God fixed the limites of the sea, which only happened when the planets crust had cooled enough after it had first formed that it started to wrinkle and hump up out of the sea that covered it. Also, the "burst forth from the womb" was earlier, when the ice in the comets and other icey bodies that had joined the rocky bodies in forming the first part of planet earth where vaporised into steam from the heat from the friction of all those infallling rocks. That would cause the steam to expand, and be lighter than the surrounding magma, and so it would rise upward, reach the surface, and "burst forth". Job could not have been present then, that was almost 4.5 billion years ago, and even if he had been, it would have killed him. He was also not present when the earth was completly surrouned by a thick band of clouds and thick darkness.

There is more:
Job 38:12 "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place,
Job 38:13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?
Job 38:14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.
Job 38:15 The wicked are denied their light, and their upraised arm is broken.
Job 38:16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Job 38:17 Have the gates of death been shown to you? Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death ?
Job 38:18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this.
Job 38:19 "What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside?
Job 38:20 Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
Job 38:21 Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years!
Job 38:22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail,
Job 38:23 which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle?
Job 38:24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
Did Job have a bathyscape or submarine and could he travel in it to " the recesses of the deep"? And why, if this is not at all factual, does God mention recesses in the deep, valleys, whan no man without a bathyscape or submarine could even know that there are indeed many deep valleys in the sea bed? Clearly, Job did not see that because he could not (It is very difficult to go that deep even today). Had Job journeyed to space and seen the "vast expanses of the earth", or space, the place where darkness resides? And God is clearly talking about things that were created long before Job was even born, as shown by Job 38:21 .

And look specifically here "Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years!" Clearly, God is saying that these things took place many many years before Job was even born, "You have lived so many years!". Job would have to have been millions of years old to see wuch things, "so many years!".

This is why I said the Job had not and could not have known of these things, I said it because God said it frst, and made it absolutly clear that that was what he was saying, " Where were you". Therefore, we see things that God himself said that Job had not seen. Therefore, if later in Job we see a description of something exactly like one kind of dinosaur (not elephant ever had a tail like a cedar), we can say that Job also may not have been present when God made that.
Job 40:15 "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.
Job 40:16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly!
Job 40:17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
Job 40:18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.
Job 40:19 He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
What else besides the largest of the dinosaurs could have a tail like a cedar, could be called first amoung the works of God (the biggest land animals ever), could have hollow bones ("tubes")? There is only one creature that fits this description, and it fits it exactly, right down to the armored scales mentioned later.

Therefore, it is not me saying that Job did not witness at least some of these things, it is God.
Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
Job 38:21 Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years!

Therefore, if you say that Job did witness these things, your argument is not with me, your argument is with God.