Evolution in Dinosaurs

[Murray]

Recently I was watching a history channel episode on origins and decline of the dinosaurs and one thing the narrator kept bringing up was evolution. Now this got me thinking, since it is so well proven that dinosaurs evolved, wouldn’t that make more sense that we evolved also.

And upon reading rich deems article on why we are no related to Neanderthals, it seemed to dawn on me that evolution made more sense and rich deems article made less sense. So what he is saying is that these almost identical humanoid creatures died off and then we just popped into existence; it just does not seem to make any sense. And if evolution is so well proven in other species such as dinosaurs why is it so far off to say that we evolved.

The other thing I do not understand is why evolution automatically means there is no god. Could you not interpret the book of genesis more symbolically than literally. I mean look at revelation, I’m almost 100% that revelation is not entirely literal.

[neo-x]

The thing is that when we say dinosaurs evolved, there are no transitional fossil support to back up this claim. I personally think that evolution could have played a role but there are equal ideas that might say it didn't. Evolution will not cut God out, it will cut God out the way we thought he is involved. But regardless of this, the real problem is, we think dinosaurs evolved and as there is no fossil proof of it, we do not know any better - hence we conclude evolution is the only way. The kicker here is that if we say evolution is the only way and dinosaurs evolved, then we have to go back to the very creation of life itself, the primordial soup and say that is how it all begun. Since from evolution's view, all living thing large or small started with viral or bacterial forms of life that gradually evolved into complex creatures like dinosaurs. There are still large gaps to fill this theory and you will often find statement like "we think" or "may be they evolved from this" these statements are quite subtle but they make a huge difference genetically. I am all up for evolution if there is solid concrete proof of it.

[Murray]

Why did god even bother creating the dinosaurs, it really makes no sence to me.........................

[neo-x]

Because God is eternal and he creates all the time, that is what I think, why did God create Saturn or the other 100 millions of galaxies. Do you think that eternity started when he made earth, 4 billion years ago....nops...he was there when nothing existed and I kind of always thought that before he made us, he must have created all sorts of other things. He wouldn't just be sitting idle in heaven. So my personal belief is that God creates always. He never stops. There is no sense in him stopping creation.

[Murray]

It is very evident that god is well, "realistic" when he creates things. I mean look at science , biology, and chemistry, its fascinating to see how complex everything is and its awesome to see how it makes up everything. So then since this universe and earth are so very complex why is it far off to put a more "realistic" theory such as evolution in play. It seems to make more sense than god popping us into existence. Look back a couple hundred years, they believed that the earth was a solid dome, no air, no microscopic organisms, that was it, just everything was their and solid, this seems actually how if god was going to make things "pop" into existence, he would have created it this way. But no, instead he created life very complexly, almost if to challenge us to find the clues of how we exist, such as oxygen, why food sustains us, why we need water ect.. If god created us perfectly, why do we need water, food, sleep, stinky arm pits, ect…

I just now am slowly creeping back towards theistic evolution instead of day/age progressive creationist. Honestly it seems to make more sense, from thinking on this for long hours i kind of thought this up..
-God started evolution and it progressed slowly until it reached Cro-magnon stage, at this point it was at the intelligence level he wished for so then he gave us souls,(evolution all occurring in the 6 day/time period). If you wish to take adam and eve literally you could say that adam and eve were the first humanoids to receive souls.

Even in the bible god seems to take off thing that are already there,( Jesus and the water to wine, multiplication of the fish and bread) so then why is far off to say that god " took off what was already there" and gave us, his most advanced creation souls?

[jlay]

Now this got me thinking, since it is so well proven that dinosaurs evolved, wouldn’t that make more sense that we evolved also.

Proven? It is no wonder that you are trying to adopt TE if you believe that evolution (the darwinian kind) has been proven in any sense. First, you can not prove evolution (molecules to man). You can not observe the past. We can make forensic assessments of what we find in the fossil record. What do we find regarding dinosaurs? Extinction and death. The fossil record is a death record of fully formed animals dying off. Not a record of transitional species, which would be necessary to support darwinian evolution.

So, when you say, "this makes more sense" you are basing your sensability on a faulty foundations. You are trying to conform your belief to fit the wisdom of man. What does the bible say about doing such?
1 Cor. 3:19, 1 Cor. 1:20
Bottom line is that the world has convinced you that dinosaur evolution is proven, when in fact that is far from the truth. But if you are convinced that dino evolution is true, then it shouldn't be hard to take the next step. Humans. All the while God's role in the universe is shrinking and shrinking in your perception. Granted this isn't going to be that obvious to you. Afterall, this is perfectly sound reasoning regarding the wisdom of men. There are all kinds of people saying, "why couldn't God.......?" People today who claim to be Christian and deny the virgin birth, and a literal resurection. Evolution fits what those who deny God would expect to see. Anyone who denies that is whistling past the graveyard. Biblical creation is an impossiblity in their mind. Whether you are literal 6 day, day age, TE, etc, doesn't matter. You are just a superstitous, wacko nut job who is afraid of dying. A TE may pat themselves on the back and think, "My belief system fits the view of man, much better." But those people are fooling themselves and are deceived.

You are welcome to believe TE. And I don't think that accepting TE necessarily excludes one from being truly saved. I do however believe that this person is deceived by the wisdom of man, and is more interested in having intellectual approval from the world than they are with being consistent with what the bible teaches, and with what the evidence actually may offer.

One thing is certain for those who succumb to the wisdom of the world. They will be tossed around like a wave on the sea. In other words, they will constantly be in doubt about what is and isn't regarding God and His ways in the Earth.

Let me ask you this. What is "realistic" about a man being dead three days, being raised and ascending to heaven? If your argument for origins is based on "realistic" then you have a long road ahead of you. Maybe it's more realistic that Jesus is just a fairy tale, and not the son of God.

[Murray]

the reason the acts of jesus were seen as amazing was because they were unrealistic. If everything in the world was unrealistic like man popping bread in front of him jesus would have just been seen as another normal unrealistic person. however, god made the universe "realistic" so that we could understand it and attempt at best to explain it, and when jesus came things were generally ordinary, nobody was rising from the dead, making water to wine act.., jesus did these things to prove he was the son of god because they were impossible for a normal person to realistically do.

6 day creationist ignore science completly and believe that it is the devils black magic to get us away from god. Im sorry but that is phooy. God made the world realistically, and maybe he did make us as we are now and we did not evolve, who knows, but it makes no sence to me that homo eructus, neanderthaws, homo austrialius were all almost identical to us and then they vanished and then we were made.

[jlay]

How is making everything from nothing realistic in the way that human's reason?

homo eructus, neanderthaws, homo austrialius were all almost identical to us and then they vanished and then we were made.

Maybe they are almost identical because they are. Just like aboriginals are almost identical to Europeans, and Africans to Asians, etc. Maybe you are brainwashed to view things through an evolutinary lens and not even know it, which leads to such statements. Or, maybe you are right. If so, maybe we should question whether aboriginals are 'soul' people. It would follow that logic.

There are a some 6 day creationist who ignore science. And there are a lot, I'd guess many, many more who don't. I don't think making sweeping generalizations such as that is going to accomplish anything. For one it is fallacious reasoning and prejudicial. 2nd it is making faluty asssumptions about what constitutes science. You accuse them of ignoring science. But to conclude that dinosaurs evolved means you would be the one ignoring the science. You are substituting the religious worldview of evolution for actual science. Obviously the poular position in evolutionary science is that dinos evolved. Yet the evidence indicates that they suddenly dissapear from the fossil record. And you seem to believe dino evolution as an indisputable fact, as you said it is proven. Yet, that isn't scientific. Popular or expert opinion does not part of the scienctific method. So, would one be wise to ignore this method of "science?" Murray, it would appear to me that you have some very distorted views of what actually constitutes science.

[Murray]

But my issue is that their is not a shred of evidence, not even in the bible, of 6 day creationist views.

However, the reason i Changed from TE, to day age progressive is because evidence presented by rich deem and members of this forum.

Blind faith is against the bible if I remember correctly, and 6 day creationism is blind faith, in my opinion anyway....

[Murray]

and jlay as a young earth creationist, may I ask what your view on dinosaurs is?

[jlay]

I am not dogmatic about 6-day creationism. At least in the sense that day must be a literal 24 hour day. I simply don't know. I too have read the main page articles. I do not go as far as to be a day-ager. What evidence presented by Rich caused you to lean to TE? Be specific.

But my issue is that their is not a shred of evidence, not even in the bible, of 6 day creationist views.

Your moving the goal posts. Your post was about evolution in dinosaurs. The evidence that creation was a 6-day event is indisputably biblical. It is how one interprets the text that is at issue. If you reject 6-day creation then reject biblical authority. End of story. I would say that most of the OECers here, are literal 6-day creationists. My guess is you meant to say, YEC, literal 24 hour day. Which has nothing to do with the critique I offered. Instead of replying to it, you jump to a different subject. Do you know who else does things like that? New Atheists. I've re-read your OP, and there is nothing in there about. Your OP essentially says dino evolution is a fact, so why not ape to man, evolution. It's bad reasoning. I showed you why. If you can show me where my critique fails and your logic is sound, be my guest.

I would also question your understanding of what evidence is, and what evidence does. There are some very mangled views within YEC. No question about that. But you can not say, "there is not a shred of evidence." Evidence does not belong to anyone. Interpretations do. YECers look at the exact same evidence as everyone else.

[Murray]

So you are saying that revelation is literal also then?

You interpret the bible all literally then that must be so. Some books are symbolic, like revelation, so then why could genesis not be symbolic and not literal as well.

And the original Hebrew text does not mean 24 hour days, it could be interpreted as 6 unknown long periods of time.

As for evidence, I do not believe without proof. Proof for me in Jesus is 2000 people saw him rise from the dead, he is recorded in texts from the time, why would a persecutor of Christians turn Christian, why did the apostils, especially peter come out of hiding after Jesus died (he rose from the dead and told them to proclaim the good news of his resurrection), see, this is evidence to me.

This however is not
-world is 10,000 years old despite infinite amount of research and data


While I can disbelieve evolution because of EVIDENCE, I can also believe in it because of EVIDENCE. I choose to disbelieve evolution because EVIDENCE against it seems to be more strong and fit my faith better.


Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

[jlay]

So you are saying that revelation is literal also then?

Does the author say it is literal? No. In fact the author of revelation let's us know from the get go that this is a vision filled with symbolic things.

You interpret the bible all literally then that must be so.

You are making assumptions about my hermaneutic that are simply incorrect. I read the bible from a historical grammatical view. At least as best as I am able. I would be lying if I said I was able to remove all my presuppositions when I handle the text. However, the word, "literal" is not as clear cut as I think you would have it. Let me give you an example.
Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth."
You can have people who all have a literal interpretation of that verse but still arrive at different conclusions about what is being said.
For example, most people, regardless of their creation perspective believe this refers to the physical earth, and the physical cosmos. I do not. I believe this refers to the two dimensions that God is operating in regarding creation. The heavenly realm, where God and the angels interact. And the Eartly realm we refer to as our universe, specifically focused on planet Earth. My view is literal, and so are the others, but they both require interpretations. (I can also say that my hermanuetic is consistent from Gen. to Revelation regarding this point.)
Same goes for what the word 'yom' means as used in the creation account. YECers have reasons they give for believing it refers to a literal 24 day. And they will give evidence. OECers have reasons they give for it having other meanings. And they will give evidence. But each can say they literally believe in 6 creation days. They just disagree how day is interpreted. Then there are some like me who aren't firmly in either camp.

And the original Hebrew text does not mean 24 hour days, it could be interpreted as 6 unknown long periods of time.

If you had thouroughly read my previous post, you would already see that I've addressed this.

Proof for me in Jesus is 2000 people saw him rise from the dead, he is recorded in texts from the time, why would a persecutor of Christians turn Christian, why did the apostils, especially peter come out of hiding after Jesus died (he rose from the dead and told them to proclaim the good news of his resurrection), see, this is evidence to me.

That's fine, but just know that how you are using 'proof' here really isn't consistent with how the word may be more generally used. Like me, you are personally convinced that the testimony in the bible is accurate and true. I have no argument that the Bible is evidence, and very good evidence at that.

Some books are symbolic, like revelation, so then why could genesis not be symbolic and not literal as well.

We should never make assumptions. In other words, we shouldn't let the claims of evolution determine whether we handle the Genesis account as symbolic. That is being led around by the nose, and I assure you is a poor hermanuetic. More of a reader response method. A historical grammatical reading does allow us to have such distinctions, and to ultimately ask, "what was the author literally trying to communicate, and to whom?" I think that is why so many YEC and OEC get off base in their arguments. And I've been just as guilty of this.

[Murray]

"We should never make assumptions."

You are assuming that the earth is young.
I am assuming the earth is old.

You assume we need to intepret the english bible literally.
I assume we need to interpret the english bible more sybolically.

So yes, we do need to make some assumptions, as to which one is correct, we will not know until we die.

You assume according to your beliefs from the evidence you recieved and how you reacted to it, I assume according to the evidence I have read and how I reacted to it.

But you still have yet to explain, what EVIDENCE have you besides your assumtion that the english bible is literal, that the earth is young.
If your belief is due only in part to your assumtion, then this is quite pointless for me to debate you isnt it?

[neo-x]

any interpretation depends upon the mindset, assumption, self preference, vocabulary and pre-existing belief. Make it litral or symbolic, Christians have been fighting over this even before the days of reformation. One thing we should all remember, God can surprise you any time, just when you think you got it ABSOLUTELY covered is when we may even be wrong. Remember Elijah, he was so sure that no one remained a prophet except him but God told him that there were others. so...