Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[Brian 2.0]

Why assume that adult dino's were on the ark? Noah could have had a bunch of eggs.

...and a big case of Enfamil Dino-baby Formula and multiple pamphlets of "how to raise a dinosaur" (one for each species) since the baby dinos wouldn't have parents to teach them how to survive/hunt/etc.

[Alan]

So you're saying that wood can (in theory) last 45 million years?

 

No it can't. It wasn't 45 million years or anything like that figure.

That's what people often do. They say "this can't be true" because (for example) "wood cannot last 45 million years", rather than acknowledge that it may not, therefore, be 45 million years or anything like it!

[thesometimesaint]

Why assume that adult dino's were on the ark? Noah could have had a bunch of eggs. 

 

That creates even more problems for Noah.

• The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity.
• Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn't have survived.

[Alan]

 

That creates even more problems for Noah.

• The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity.
• Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn't have survived.

 

 

Remember, we are talking here of "kinds" not species.

[Brian 2.0]

So you're saying that wood can (in theory) last 45 million years?

 

No it can't. It wasn't 45 million years or anything like that figure.

That's what people often do. They say "this can't be true" because (for example) "wood cannot last 45 million years", rather than acknowledge that it may not, therefore, be 45 million years or anything like it!

 

Petrified wood isn't "wood" anymore.  It's stone.

 

And yes, stone can last 45 million years.

 

EDIT:  just saw the original link and this doesn't apply as it's not talking about petrified wood apparently.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So you're saying that wood can (in theory) last 45 million years?

Typically not. This case is anything but typical however. It was engulfed in lava that cooled quickly (as it was only partially burned). It was kept free from oxygen and water and bacteria.

 

I'd still like to hear your thoughts on why God makes Carbon (and other means of radiometric dating) make it look like the Earth is so old.

[Alan]

 

I'd still like to hear your thoughts on why God makes Carbon (and other means of radiometric dating) make it look like the Earth is so old.

 

Who says he does?

God shouldn't get the blame just because we not as good at scientific investigation as we think we are.

[Brian 2.0]

Petrified wood isn't "wood" anymore.  It's stone.

 

And yes, stone can last 45 million years.

 

my apologies... we're not talking about petrified wood.  Just saw the original link.

[danielwoods]

...and a big case of Enfamil Dino-baby Formula and multiple pamphlets of "how to raise a dinosaur" (one for each species) since the baby dinos wouldn't have parents to teach them how to survive/hunt/etc.

If that's true, how did they learn when they were first created by God? 

 

 

That creates even more problems for Noah.

• The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity.
• Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn't have survived.

 

 

Indeed. And when they first reach sexual maturity reptilian creatures aren't 200 feet tall, yet. The point is why assume they are the size of largest bones we've found? 

[danielwoods]

Typically not. This case is anything but typical however. It was engulfed in lava that cooled quickly (as it was only partially burned). It was kept free from oxygen and water and bacteria.

 

I'd still like to hear your thoughts on why God makes Carbon (and other means of radiometric dating) make it look like the Earth is so old.

 

Here's an interesting question. I don't have the answer, which is why it's an interesting question. 

 

At creation (assuming a 6 day creation model). On day one, how much carbon would a tree have in it, and what would it's test date be? 

 

The text states that things were created fully formed, given the appearance of age. 

[thesometimesaint]

Remember, we are talking here of "kinds" not species.

 

The ever moving goal posts of "kind".

[Rivers]

It seems that the entire young-earth creationist paradigm is dependent on the non-acceptance of dating methods.  If the dating methods are reliable, young earth creationism falls apart and the evolutionary makes the most sense.

[Brian 2.0]

If that's true, how did they learn when they were first created by God? 

 

I'm the wrong person to ask as I don't believe that God created dinosaurs some particular day in the past.  I believe dinosaurs came about due to evolution.  

[Alan]

It seems that the entire young-earth creationist paradigm is dependent on the non-acceptance of dating methods.  If the dating methods are reliable, young earth creationism falls apart and the evolutionary makes the most sense.

 

How so?

[JLHPROF]

It seems that the entire young-earth creationist paradigm is dependent on the non-acceptance of dating methods.  If the dating methods are reliable, young earth creationism falls apart and the evolutionary makes the most sense.

 

Yes and no.  The only other explanation would be if the earth's creation was completed 6000 years ago, but the materials it consists of were much older.  Just as I can buy antique fabric and turn it into a cushion.  The cushion would be brand new, the materials would be much older.

[Gray]

He did more than reference the story. He implied that they hadn't read their own history. "You don't know the scriptures or the power of God..." 

 

⁴ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’^[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’^[b]? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

 

 

Notice that he rests his case on the fact of creation. Not a story. He didn't say... "long ago... far far away..." Rather he said. "Haven't you read, that at the beginning..."

 

I'm not seeing how that means he thought the story was literal. The principles are the same regardless.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Who says he does?

God shouldn't get the blame just because we not as good at scientific investigation as we think we are.

If it wasn't God, then I would think that Creationists top scientific priority would be to explain this. Might be a nobel prize in the works if you could figure out why radio active decay isn't constant.

[thesometimesaint]

If that's true, how did they learn when they were first created by God? 

 

 

Indeed. And when they first reach sexual maturity reptilian creatures aren't 200 feet tall, yet. The point is why assume they are the size of largest bones we've found? 

Because most animals are very close to full size at sexual maturity.

 

No dinosaur that I know of was 200 ft tall. Some were big, some were small, at least compared to humans.

 

The largest(Ultrasaur) was about the same length as a modern day Blue Whale.

SEE http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/what-did-ultrasaurus-look-like

 

The largest carnivore(T-Rex) was 40 ft long and 13 ft tall at the shoulder. It helped rear its young.

 

The Dreaded Velocirapter  was the size of an average turkey with its tail wrapped around itself.

 

The smallest(Microrapter)about the size of a chicken.

 

I have no desire to meet any living dinosaurs. Their bones are quite enough for me.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Here's an interesting question. I don't have the answer, which is why it's an interesting question. 

 

At creation (assuming a 6 day creation model). On day one, how much carbon would a tree have in it, and what would it's test date be? 

 

The text states that things were created fully formed, given the appearance of age. 

It's the trees that were subsequently formed then that you would need to look at. Trees take carbon in from the atmosphere. Cosmic rays make C14 in the atmosphere at a near constant rate. Carbon dating can be used (and has been) to successfully date biblical artifacts going to the time of David. Why does the dating method break down once we get more than 3000 years ago? (I know you have stated that you don't know, so this is just a rhetorical question)

Edited February 13, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[thesometimesaint]

It seems that the entire young-earth creationist paradigm is dependent on the non-acceptance of dating methods.  If the dating methods are reliable, young earth creationism falls apart and the evolutionary makes the most sense.

 

Dating methods are just the start of their problems. They start from an absolution conviction and dismiss everything back to The Enlightenment.

[danielwoods]

It's the trees that were subsequently formed then that you would need to look at. Trees take carbon in from the atmosphere. Cosmic rays make C14 in the atmosphere at a constant rate. Carbon dating can be used (and has been) to successfully date biblical artifacts going to the time of David. Why does the dating method break down once we get more than 3000 years ago? (I know you have stated that you don't know, so this is just a rhetorical question)

 

If the actual age of the tree is one day. It dies and is dated, there is only one days worth of C14 in it, is that right? Or is there C14 present as a result of the creative process. That's the hypothetical that I don't know the answer to. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If the actual age of the tree is one day. It dies and is dated, there is only one days worth of C14 in it, is that right? Or is there C14 present as a result of the creative process. That's the hypothetical that I don't know the answer to. 

Assuming that God used no C14 to begin with, this is almost correct. Whatever new material (part of a tree ring, leaves etc) that were formed in that one day would have C14 present at atmospheric concentrations. I guess my question would be that if the trees were created with the appearance of age, why wouldn't God have included C14 in the mix?

[danielwoods]

Assuming that God used no C14 to begin with, this is almost correct. Whatever new material (part of a tree ring, leaves etc) that were formed in that one day would have C14 present at atmospheric concentrations. I guess my question would be that if the trees were created with the appearance of age, why wouldn't God have included C14 in the mix?

 

Which is an interesting question. I don't know. If God included C14 how much would he have included? 

[thesometimesaint]

Which is an interesting question. I don't know. If God included C14 how much would he have included? 

 

A ratio of however much the earth produced.

[Gray]

I hope no one's faith is hanging on scientists being mistaken about the decay rate of carbon 14