Evidence for God from Science

The "Hard evidence" scientists have is "It's not in the fossil record". Seeing how I couldn't care less about a largely incomplete fossil record, I see no reason to accept their beliefs.

Actually, the fossil record has been completed in many areas as Gould and others who back punctuated equilibria believe.

Kurieuo.

There can always be a new branch that has not yet been discovered. In addition, we have to actually now how many species have existed from the beginning until today to know we have completed the fossil record, and we need to complete the fossil record to know how many species they are. Kind of ironic, don't you think? In addition I suspect a flying lizard that breathes fire wouldn't fall under a branch that has been well studied, otherwise we'd have heaps of info.

Not really ironic. Eldredge and Gould proposed their theory on two independent paleontological studies, and they describe in detail how data supports punctuative equilibria. The paper where they first proposed their idea on positive evidence can be read at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridl ... dredge.pdf.

Kurieuo.

i don't know, the articles i've posted (and there are more) had too much convincing evidence. i think we "walked together" if only for a short time. i really don't care what the scientists say...they've been wrong too many times before.

besides, it's such a cool idea!

I do not find it unbelievable for man and dinosaur to have coexisted.

Someone mentioned herds of dinosaurs not attack towns, well there arent too many instances of any herds of any kind of animal attacking a town, if a wild animal does enter a town for the most part it stays on the very outskirts, even if you take the example of the Ghost and the Darkness, the two female? lions that were attacking a town in africa, it took them a long time i believe to figure out exactly what was going on, i may not be right about this, but its not as though the lions just sat in the middle of town.

Also if dinosaurs were common, its not something to write about, so it may not be noted as much. Do you write down on a piece of paper everytime you see a dog in the streets that no one claims? I think with more common occurences of things they become less written about.

Also on that point is that to my undestanding we are continually finding out that ancient man was alot smarter that we imagined he could be. I remember years ago watching something on tv about the oldest body that theyve found yet, and they found him with tools that they never imagined someone from that time would have, and mapped out what they think his journey might have been which was one with logic to it, not just a wandering man in the wild.

Another example would be how i dont remember what it is, but atleast one or two libraries have been destroyed taking tons of information with them, we invented the compass at some point, and later found out it had already been used and known about way in the past, but the knowledge of it got burned up i believe.

Another possible explanation, and perhaps a good one, is that anthropologists believe that man started off as hunting and gathering groups, groups that moved from one place to another, collecting mostly fruits and vegetables, meat was hard to come by and i believe made up only 10 percent of their diet, animals tend to stay away from humans, and if the humans are moving around themselves it may not be likely for a town attack or as well as it may not be as likely for them to see each other.

I find more and more that what the Bible says is true, i think that the hard part of course is figuring out what the Bible says, as not every word and verse means what it says, so we dont truely know if it was 24 hour days in the creation as we know it, or a different span of time, as i believe the Bible says that the blink of an eye is 1000 years and 1000 years is the blink of an eye to God or something, but God being who He is it is very possible for Him to have done it in a 24 hour period.

good points!

I think the library of Alexandria had the most records of past technology and knowledge, and most of it was lost when the stupid Turks burned it down. We know Greek Fire has been lost(think of ancient/medieval flamethrowers that caused a vicious fire which could not be extinguished). The byzantines used it to destroy the arabian fleets, but its secret was so closely guarded that it was eventually lost. I suspect the library would have likely held its chemical composition, as well as knowledge on other stuff, like building pyramids.

JBirdAngel
example of the Ghost and the Darkness, the two female? lions that were attacking a town in africa, it took them a long time i believe to figure out exactly what was going on, i may not be right about this, but its not as though the lions just sat in the middle of town.

The Lions were male, the Natives thought they were demons, they named them "Ghost" and "Darkness" and the film has been stretched from the real story. Sounds alot like Religion doesn't it?

the website http://www.doesgodexist.org/ has some very interesting articles on Dinosaurs and what their role might have been.

ya, i wasnt sure, they didnt have manes if i recall so i thought maybe they were females.

also, according to the lion king its the females that do the hunting

yes the two of them were unusual because they had no manes, but they were males. i have read that the lions in the movie were nothing at all like the real lions.

As for the Behemoth. The example I've heard is the hipopatmus. But, one of the discriptions is that it had a tail like a tree. Last time I saw a hippo, it had a small tail. I've heard someone suggest the Komodo dragon. But the Komodo eats other animals, not grass. "he eateth grass as an ox" Job 40:15. So, it eats grass, has a huge tail, lives in the mountains, and can be considered a behemoth. I can't think of any modern animal. Sounds most like a dinosaur.

As for the Leviathan. I can't think of a water animal that breathes fire. This is where I kind of think it was a dragon. This is actually quite logical. I saw a special on the discovery channel about one week ago.(specifically Animal Planet) The chance of dragons not existing is actually less logical than saying they at one time existed. Why? In almost every single culture around the world, there are stories of dragons. From the Aztecs, to the Chinese, to the Europeans, even to the eskimos who had no "normal" reptiles. And none of these people ever came into contact with one another. So, the probability of those being simply fairy tales, as opposed to records, are quite slim. As for firebreathing, not as improbable as you might think. The dragon could have two sacks filled with two different types of chemicals that ignite when combined. The example used in the special is Hydrogen and Platinum. Hydrogen would be produced from their diet of meats. There are bacteria that produce certain gases in our stomachs. The difference is, is that the dragon's stomach is designed to make specifically Hydrogen, and that gas doesn't go waste, but is stored in one of two sacks. And, somehow a dragon would eat the platinum and project platinum and Hydrogen, resulting in fire breathing. Of course, there are other chemicals available, that is just one example.

But, if it was a dragon and a dinosaur, I'm pretty sure both are extict now. I mean, we would notice something that big on land.

You folks sound a bit anti-YEC around here?

Because I certainly believe in a Y.E. And as far as dinosaurs being around with people, we believe they were on the ark with the rest of the animals. The evidence for a young earth is the same evidence as for a Carl Sagan's billion's and billion's of year old earth. It's just interpreted differently.

Like I may have read on this forum (read it somewhere), it's a bigger leap of faith to be an atheist than it is to believe the bible. I feel that way about the literal 6 day creation period vs evolution.

So, I'll throw my lot in with the Y.E.'ers and the 6 literal days of creation. God said it was good after it was done, would have been no death up until that point. First death was the animal(s) God killed for the clothing to cover up Adam and Eve's nakedness. Wouldn't have been good if there were millions of years of killing going on before that. The animals were all co-existing great before sin (maybe up until after the flood) and they were all eating their vegies.

That last find with the dinosaur meat just adds credence to the claim.

CountryBoy wrote:You folks sound a bit anti-YEC around here?

Yeah, there's definately a stronger following of Day-Ager's here than YEC's. To be fair, I've come to respect Day-Age a lot more since I learned their interpretations so well as a result of my discussions on this forum.

With regards to animal death, Kurieuo and I had a lengthy and very good discussion about it. Search for my name and "animal death" or something like that, and you should be able to dig it up... Kurieuo managed to convince me that natural death of animals was established pre-fall. I suggest you check you it out. And if you can provide a whole new set of evidence against him, that would be great. LOL.

Hey there Felgar,

I'm not really well read on the young earth stuff, so I'll try to find the animal death discussion you spoke of. And I'll try to learn as much as I can from here.

From the little I've read of creation vs evolution, I do think there is as much evidence that points to a young earth as there is that points to evolution. The few people I've read here seem to lead me to believe that most believe in the Intelligent designer...so that's what counts.

But I am curious about most all of the different discussions there are on this board. I tried to do a bit of debating on a board a few years ago that was a nightmare. It always turned into a real battle from both sides so I just quit visiting the site. This place looks good, very good (not perfect ), thus there could have never been death here, right?

So now that I'm at a job where I have access maybe I can learn something from ya'll.

The one thing I am sure of is that, He has risen indeed!