That dogs and wolves are related have nothing to do with macro evolution. They are of the same species. What Christians have a problem with is a dog becoming g a cat at some point down the road.

Or a T-rex becoming a bird.....

Paleontologists are convinced that they can determine the age of formations such as the (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) Creek Formation which contains a lot of fossils including, dinosaurs, mammals, reptiles, plants, etc. They sat that those fossils can be aged b/c they have dated the igneous rock (volcanic) layers both above and below the sedimentary rock where the fossils occur.

So, no one has ever "dated" a dinosaur fossil. The date is determined by how old they say the igneous rocks are. There is a whole lot of huge assumptions made by saying that, especially since many 'dino' fossils are found on top of the surface with other fossils that can be considered "mammal-like" dinosaurs.

When it comes to dinosaurs, it seems they were all screwed up, they were mammal like, bird like, and reptile like, all at the same time.

Christian means CHRIST follower

Christ said he would be in the the grave THREE DAYS AS JONAH WAS IN THE BELLY OF TGE WHALE

CHRIST also said: it will be as it was when NOAH WENT IN TO THE ARK

So I would say YES to be a Good Christian you need to believe what tge bible says

ITS EASY IF YOU BELIEVE GOD IS WHO HE SAID HE IS. THE impossible IS EASY TO BELIEVE

No reputable paleontologist will tell you 65 million year old dinosaur fossils were dated via carbon 14 dating. Can't be done! They're are other dating methods that are considered reliable for things that old and typically they will use all of them to cross check their results.

Really guys? What a narrow world some of us live in!

I tend to agree with you the assertions of many popular creationists, waggler. Personally, I suspect the universe is fairly young and I think the universe was probably created in what we now know as six earth days. But I'm really only speculating based on hearsay, an informed faith in the truth of the Bible, and the evidence to which I have been exposed. I really can't say for sure. After all, I wasn't there when the universe was created.

The thing that irks me is how so many of these creationists claim they know for sure exactly how and when the universe was created. They claim to have the scientific evidence to prove it. Well I don't believe that any more than I believe this fantastic baloney about the spontaneous generation of life and a transformation from a few cells to the biological wonders we see today. You know what... those creationists weren't there when the universe was created either. Both sides are only making their best deductions based on their particular interpretation of the available facts.

That's why I am not inclined to visit the Creation Museum down in Kentucky. I was there once when it first opened and found that it made me really uncomfortable. I have no problem with creationists pointing out the many problems with the popular and modern scientific theories about the beginnings of life and the universe. I have no problem with them offering other possible interpretations of the known facts. I fully support putting forth the truth about creation as written in God's Word. But I am inclined not to trust them once they start claiming to have all the answers and knowing for sure exactly how it all went down.

It is obvious to me that the origins of matter and life are supernatural. For anyone to try to explain them based solely on natural mechanisms is pure foolishness.

Carbon Dating:

The best explanation as it was explained to me was pretty simple and I liked it.

Science = carbon dating, based on carbon decaying at a consistent rate over time and thus can be measured and dated.

Religion = carbon exists, sure it decays, but not necessarily at a consistent rate of time in the presence of GOD there fore it can not be accurately measured and dated.

Only then did I understand the argument against Science.

So has any body heard about the Trex that was found and still had soft tissue in its bones prompting them to look at other dinosaurs bone and finding that more then half always contained soft tissue, something that they said was impossible. Their explanation doesn’t sound all that believable to me

But the. What do I know

So has any body heard about the Trex that was found and still had soft tissue in its bones prompting them to look at other dinosaurs bone and finding that more then half always contained soft tissue, something that they said was impossible. Their explanation doesn’t sound all that believable to me

But the. What do I know

The creation debate is a little like, what came first the chicken or the egg?

If God created all the complexities of the earth and the life on it, at what stage did it all begin? Did He create seeds that would eventually become trees or start out with trees that produce seeds? Were the first humans created as day old infants that raised themselves? Did He put life on a brand new planet or one that had already been "aged"? A God capable of creating life itself would certainly be able to create a planet with fossels and partially decayed carbon.

I don't think anyone is viewing the world through narrow glasses, but rather the opposite. Personally, I think Carbon 14 dating is accurate and a reliable method to date organic material less than say 50,000 years.

The question is, if Carbon dating is indeed accurate, and I believe it is, Then why is there Carbon 14 atoms in fossils that are said to be 65 million years old? If they are truly that old there should not be one single carbon atom left based on the decay of about 5,730 years.

Nightlife, I have heard of the soft tissue they found in the T-rex that was in the (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) Creek Formation. Prior to them finding that, it was thought that all soft tissue would be 100% gone by a million years.

I wonder how many young earth people realize that the idea started with an Irish guy named Bishop Ussher (1581-1656), he calculated that creation occurred at 6PM October 22, 4004 B.C.

He was also a Calvinist. I realize that this is getting way into the weeds of Theology, but I'll bet that many of you guys who believe in a young earth would have all kinds of problems with the some of the other beliefs of a Calvinist.

I guess Bishop Ussher figured he had it pretty well figured out to have it all worked out to the specific hour.

But how do we know he was the first one to come up with the idea? How old did some people think the earth was before he came along?

Although I'm not married to the idea, I believe in a "young" earth. And I don't have any kind of problem at all with the beliefs of a Calvinist. I am one! Of course, the two things have no relation to one another than I can see, other than perhaps a foundational belief in the truth and inerrancy of the scripture.

umm, kind of think the scriptures are the first to claim a young earth. I dont think the old earth theory was seriously talked about until early in 19th century.

^^^^^^^
Kart29,
Sorry to hear about your Calvanistic leanings -I think God will overlook that little flaw on Judgement Day-.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that there are people who will argue vociferously in favor of a particular point that someone may espouse because they agree with that one position. However, they will then find all kinds of reasons to discredit everything else they say.

Maybe this will be a better example than my use of Ussher:

When I've had this young earth debate with fellow Christians who are antagonistic or suspicious of science I will set a trap for them. This is how the trap goes (it generally wont work for younger people, you had to be around during the O.J. trial).

I'll say to the person I'm debating with, "Do you believe O.J. was actually guilty of murdering Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman". 99% of the time the person will say "of course O.J. was guilty". I then ask them "and why do you think he was guilty even though the jury found him innocent". My friend will invariably reply that the DNA evidence was conclusive proof that he was guilty.

I then proceed to give my friend a hard time about his unquestioning faith in science when it supports his beliefs (O.J.s guilt), but then doubt science when it doesn't support his beliefs.

jwill,
I'm still waiting for someone to show me the scripture reference that gives the age of the earth or when it was created, other than "In the Beginning...."

I find these kind of threads more amusing to read then to participate these days.
Some folks have got to get their wording sorted out though. Theories can be wrong. Science itself is not. Unlike religion, it constantly evolves and improves.
100 years ago a pocket watch was giving you the wrong time all the time and had to be wound up and adjusted on a day to day basis and was usually off by a few minutes, giving the wrong time. The watch I have strapped to my wrist now is linked to the atomic clock in Nevada and automatically updates its time at 0200 every night. It is still telling me the wrong time all be it by fractions of a millisecond. Good enough for me though. But that has been one of the advancements in science. Some religious folks however like to say that both watches are wrong with they are and thus science is wrong. Hard core folks then look up at the sun to see if its time for dinner yet. Others get into their truck powered by fossil fuels and drive home.
Waggler has the subject nailed down pretty good IMHO

So science has to keep being tweaked because they find flaws

But as devote followers of the bible God and His word never change (NOTE: I said devote)

Like much if the "history" in the bible scholars said these cities, people, king never existed. But low and behold they then discover some proof of these places and people


Another example would be the "impossible" things like the day GOD stopped the earth for the battle to continue. Impossible right. Yet in Chinese history they report this "long " day. That's what I've read, can I prove that is real. No

Part of faith is just that faith. It's easier to believe in if you have seen the impossible.

I have, a huge tumor disappear overnight in my grandmothers brain. Drs say "no explanation"
I seen a guy falling off of a roof "fly" to another roof
There are way more and greater example of impossible things happening to say that ANYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE and that to me includes young earth. Or even a rejuvenated earth "because in the beginning the earth was void and without form". But it was there !!

So hey I'll take GODS word over any man's

Lol. I find some statements kind of humerous as well Scuba, Such as science is never wrong, it just evolves.
Waggler stated that Christianity makes a lot of assumptions. Science, and yes geology, does the same thing. Uniformitarianism.

All the cures for diseases etc have come from science,as well as countless other things we all take for granted today.Funny how some dummies are so selective about what they choose to select as useable or not.From what I can see based on religion,lol.Sort of like how some choose to interpret the bible to justify atrocities racism etc.

Carry on with the preaching.