NO SPECULATION - JUST THE FACTS ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE.

COULD DINOSAURS AND HUMANS HAVE COEXISTED?

SURELY DINOSAURS PROVE EVOLUTION TOOK PLACE?


DINOSAURS: THE FANTASY.

Dinosaurs fascinate everyone. It's probably the thought of these huge creatures, some larger than a London double deck bus, roaming around the streets where we live. It seems unbelievable but it did happen. Some of them would have munched their way through your vegetable garden with one mouthful.

Evolutionists tell us constantly that these creatures died out 60 or 70 million years ago. School children are told that dinosaurs are proof of evolution and that the earth is millions of years old. Some time ago I watched the young grandson of a friend playing with a plastic dinosaur and he went on to explain to me that; "It died 60 million years ago." What rubbish! We have all heard many THEORIES as to how they died out and I list just eleven here:

1. Dinosaurs lost their sex drive and failed to reproduce enough offspring.

2. They were plagued with cataracts and went blind.

3. The carnivores ate the herbivores and then ate each other.

4. Dinosaur AIDS, due to their uncontrolled promiscuity, wiped them all out.

5. They were wiped out by food poisoning.

6. Great competition from other mammals meant they could not compete and they died out.

7. A great burst of radiation from two neutron stars hitting our galaxy killed them.

8. Caterpillars ate up their food and their eggs.

9. Volcanic activity killed them.

10. Slipped discs wiped them out.

11. Wiped out through stupidity.

Well, looking at that list I don't think it's the dinosaurs that are stupid - do you?! I remind you the evolutionists latest theory as to what wiped out the dinosaurs is that a massive asteroid hit the earth and killed them. They have discovered "evidence" of this in the Gulf of Mexico. He says this is the "smoking gun". "It is proof positive of the impact." Actually it proves nothing. Any school child can tell you the earth has often been bombarded with asteroids - so what? So they've found evidence of one of them but it doesn't mean it killed the dinosaurs. Previous evidence from sediment suggests that the dinosaurs did not become extinct at exactly the same time as the impact occurred." Oh, well, that's another theory blown!

Yet the Bible is quite clear as to what wiped out the dinosaurs and the evidence backs it up. Let's look at facts.

DINOSAURS: THE FACTS.

Any reference to the name "dinosaur" will only be from the 19th century onwards. Any reference to them before this we have to look to description or illustration. "Dinosaur" means "terrible lizard" and was the name given to these strange creatures on "discovery" at the end of the 18th century.

Maestricht in Holland is famous these days for turning the EC into the EU but in 1780 it was famous for the discovery of the skull of a Mosasaurus found in an underground cavern. In 1810 Mary Anning discovered a complete skeleton of an Ichthyosaurus in the cliffs at Lyme Regis. Again in 1824 she found the skeleton of a Plesiossaurus in the same place. In 1828 this same lady discovered the Pterodactyl again in these dourset cliffs. Mary Ann Mantell also made similar discoveries. Thirty years later one was found in New Jersey. Since then many discoveries have been made.

What does this hard evidence tell us? That according to evolutionists, these huge monsters they named dinosaurs were not known to man before 1780. It is important to note that evolutionist’s claim this was the first known knowledge of dinosaurs. They claim that before this they died out 60 million years ago. To put it another way; Evolutionists claim no person living between 60 million years ago and 1780 AD could possibly have known they existed or what they looked like - agreed? Yet there is a wealth of evidence to show that dinosaurs coexisted with people (although they were not yet named dinosaurs, of course.)

DINOSAURS IN THE CATHEDRAL! Put away all preconceived ideas. In 1994 I had written something for the local paper, "The Cumberland News" about dinosaurs. Shortly afterwards I received a telephone call from Mr. Ray Hancock, a guide in Carlisle Cathedral. Would I come and look at some dinosaurs on Bishop Bell's tomb? They were puzzled by them. Bishop Bell's tomb is located in the central isle of the Carlisle Cathedral under a carpet square placed over it in 1992 for protection. The carpet is loose but now alas, they can only be viewed after obtaining permission from the Dean in writing. You will see around the edge on the brass engravings of dinosaurs.

Now the important thing here is that no one disputes that Bishop Bell died in 1496 and that he was put down in his tomb and sealed with brass which was then engraved. No one disputes the engravings were made in 1496, it is a matter of Carlisle Cathedral record. The engravings obviously represent things that were important to Bishop Bell during his lifetime, for example a hunting dog, foliage of various kinds and three different kinds of dinosaurs. Two of one of the kinds involved are pictured as if doing some courting or perhaps fighting. Either way there is simply no mistaking they are dinosaurs and were obviously quite familiar to Bishop Bell during his life time!

The obvious question evolutionists have to answer is: How can this be? No one knew about dinosaurs then - or did they?

Color photograph of dinosaur etchings in Carlisle Cathedral

Dinosaurs in Carlisle Cathedral

in 1496.


THE OLDEST REFERENCES TO DINOSAUR TYPE CREATURES:

The are many references to unnamed dinosaurs. The oldest as far as I know is in the Bible. The Book of Job tells of a period around 2,200 BC when people lived much longer than we do now as this was only 300 years after the flood of Noah's time. In chapter 40 verse 15 through to the end of chapter 41 various references are made to strange creatures.

The "Behemoth" is described as feeding on grass like an ox. It is obviously a very large creature because God here is describing it's powerful muscles and strength. It's tail sways like a cedar! A cedar is a very big tree and when it sways in the wind it gives us a picture of what it's tail must have been like. What size of animal could have supported a tail the size of a cedar tree?

They obviously lived in rivers to support their weight as some dinosaurs did. Obviously the River Jordan in full flood could not move it or make it feel insecure. God describes it's power and size, then asks: Can anyone trap it and pierce it's nose (like a bull presumably)? Obviously is this context the idea is absurd!

The second reference is to the "Leviathan". In the context of this passage God is poking a little gentle fun at Job, together with a sense of the ridiculous. He is referring to this creature saying it is so big and strong and it's hide so thick that harpoons and spears cannot pierce it. It's neck is so strong it dismays anyone in front of it. It's chest is as hard as a rock or a millstone. It's flesh is immovable. If you could get near it with a sword it would have no effect. It is so strong it treats iron like straw and bronze like rotten wood. Nothing on earth is it's equal. It is totally without fear.

With a sense of the ridiculous God asks Job if he would pull it in with a fish hook or tie it's tongue with a rope? Would he put a cord through it's nose? Will it beg Job for mercy? Will it speak to him with gentle mercy? Will it become a slave for him? Can he make of it a pet? Can he put it on a leash for his daughters to take for a walk? Can he put a bridle on it? The creature has got fearsome teeth and it's back topped with rows of shields. When it rises up the mighty are terrified, as it is so big it looks down on everyone.

However, as those strange people say across the pond; "You ain't seen nothing yet!":

In chapter 41 verses 18 to 21 God says it's snorting throws out flashes of light! Firebrands stream from it's mouth! Sparks of fire shoot out! Smoke pours from it's nostrils as a pot on the boil! If you're still in doubt He goes on; It's breath sets coals ablaze! Flames dart from it's mouth!

Can this be what we would call a dragon? - I hear you cry. Of course - what else could it be? Legends start somewhere. If you'll pardon the pun - there's no smoke without fire! This is a description of a dragon written all those years ago. There are many legends of dragons all over the world from China to Wales.

Dragons have been portrayed as mythical creatures through ignorance. Hosea 4:6 does say; "My people perish through lack of knowledge."

Is it possible for a creature to breathe out fire or smoke from it's nostrils? Let us see.

The Bombardier Beetle (Brachinus) is only a centimeter long and it can explode a jet of hot, noxious fumes at it's enemies from it's back end. Now don't laugh - it is perfectly true and I'm quite serious. I am indebted to Doctor David Rosevear, Chairman of the Creation Science Movement for this information.

This is made possible by a mixture of chemicals that can be reacted at will. These are mainly substituted hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide, which Doctor Rosevear says, is probably made from quinine derivative by the beetle. The rate of reaction between these chemicals is increased to explosive speed by the addition of two enzymes which act as catalysts. He tells us these are incredibly complex molecules, whose shape and activity are such that they hold the hydroquinine and the peroxide together and encourage them to react.

For the chemists amongst you who want to know the exact details I quote Doctor Rosevear word for word: "One enzyme is a cattalos, which decomposes the peroxide very rapidly without itself being decomposed. The other enzyme is a peroxides, which oxidizes the hydroquinines to noxious quinones. The beetle secretes hydroquinone, tolylhydroquinines and hydrogen peroxide solutions into a reservoir. When danger threatens a charge of chemicals is passed from the reservoir through a muscular valve a horny chamber at the back of the beetle. Enzymes cause the reaction to proceed at an explosive rate with a sharp sound like the crack of a pistol. The pressure of oxygen gas formed shoots a hot, smelly, bluish vapor of quinones out through two nozzles behind the insect."

There you have it - the Bombardier Beetle, alive today and doing what the Bible tells us dragon like creatures were doing long ago. If you got in the way of the beetle it would turn your skin white and burn you. Yet it does not burn the beetle itself. This is a creature that could not possibly have evolved when you think about it.

Evolutionists tell us this beetle evolved through a series of mutations but as we have seen, mutations are not beneficial. It could not have evolved gradually, could it? Until this complicated design was perfected it would not function and therefore not be beneficial to it. Indeed, it would be a disadvantage to it so according to Darwin it would not have been naturally selected. Without this perfect system it would be very dodgy for the beetle and it would be a common sight to see these beetles with their back ends blown off! This would have been a definite disadvantage to the beetle! I assume it would have been naturally rejected. Hoist by your own petard, Mr. Darwin.

We now have to ask ourselves if there are any dinosaurs so far discovered that has suitable cavities in their skulls with a similar pattern to the Bombardier Beetle? If such cavities exist it shows dragon type creature could have existed in Job's time - agreed? I know you're not going to be surprised when I say this:

Yes there are dinosaurs that have this cavity. Corythosaurus, Lambbeosaurus and Parasaurolophus all have this cavity and could have been able to fire hot gases from their nostrils. Dragons did exist after all!

In the Bible dragons were not known by their recently invented names or as dragons but by the name "Leviathan".


THERE IS MORE EVIDENCE:

Doctor Dmitri Kouznetsov is an award winning Russian scientist who has three earned doctorates, founded the group called the Moscow Creation Science Fellowship. This is a body of 120 Russian scientists who believe in the Bible and that the earth was created no more than a few thousand years ago.

To be sure he had the bones checked by Arizona State University who did not know they were dinosaur remains and they confirm not more than 25,000 years. Doctor Ivanov has got the dinosaur time scale down to very near the Biblical time scale. The result was that he became a Christian.

Recently "prehistoric trees" were discovered only 100 miles from Sidney, Australia. The reporter on Radio 4 said it was as important as discovering fresh dinosaur eggs in the trees were thought to have died out 60 million years ago.

If this is true it throws the whole of evolutionary theory into chaos. Why then, have we heard no more about it?

If we could only discover fresh (unmineralized) dinosaur bones...I hear you cry!

We have! Fresh, that is unmineralized (i.e., not fossilized) a petroleum geologist working in northwestern Alaska discovered dinosaur bones in 1961. He thought they were bison bones. In 1981 geologists realized they were those of the duck billed dinosaur. Many other dinosaur bones were discovered at the same site [49].

Scientists from the Universities of California and Alaska discovered more bones and a buried forest of giant redwood trees in the Canadian arctic! The wood could be fashioned, sewn and burned. These trees and dinosaur bones were supposed to be 65 million years old according to the theory of evolution.

What a problem they had. How could these bones have remained fresh for 65 million years? It was not the cold that preserved them because dinosaurs lived in warm climes. They reported that: "Walking amongst the ancient stumps and logs it is easy to let the imagination erase tens of millions of years, to step over not fossil but freshly fallen trunks."[50]

Well really! Why not just admit they are not tens of millions of years old but only a few thousand. Well, they can't do that - they would have to believe in God!

AS WITH SO MUCH EVIDENCE DISCUSSED, THIS EVIDENCE DESTROYS DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION. It's evidence that has been ignored and we hear nothing of it now.


DID HUMANS REALLY MEET DINOSAURS? DO THEY EXIST TODAY?

Bill Cooper has dug up some interesting legends. It certainly looks like we have coexisted throughout most of history with dinosaurs. In Canterbury Cathedral there is a chronicle which tells that on Friday, 16th September 1449 (when Bishop Bell was alive in Carlisle - remember?) A fight took place near the village of Little Conrad on the Suffolk-Essex border. It was between two giant reptiles in a field which is still called Sharpfight Meadow.

At the church at Breedon-on-the-Hill on the A453, Nottingham-Ashby-De-La-Zouch road in Leicestershire, carvings can be seen of dinosaur like monsters.

The so-called Loch Ness Monster has been in the news over the years. From time to time. Many sightings have been made, many of these just wishful thinking I'm sure. Undoubtedly many photographs are frauds but some clearly are not:

Doctor Rines has photographed a Plesiosaur, flipper and head, using a sonar camera and flood lights. These creatures have long necks and are about 23 feet long. The naturalist Peter Scott has painted impressions of these photographs and assured the scientific world these monsters do exist. Roger Parker from St. Austell photographed 25 or 30 of these creatures. Why don't we see these creatures swimming around on Loch Ness daily? I've been there many times and seen nothing. The truth is, of course, one has to be there moving around the area all the time to see such things. In the beautiful border country in southern Scotland is a wonderful area for wild life. Red squirrels, badgers, deer, over 60 variants of birds, some very rare, all normally abound here. We used to see them frequently because we were there on the spot. Their Red Squirrels are more common than rabbits. Yet if you came to visit the area you could well be disappointed because you wouldn't be here long enough to see such things. Loch Ness is almost 25 miles long, over a mile wide and 1000 feet deep and experts suspect there is also an underground outlet to the sea. All this may have something to do with it.

On 10th April 1977 some Japanese fishermen hauled up a dead Plesiosaur from 900 feet of the coast of North Island, New Zealand. They photographed it and through it back because it was smelly and rotting and it was likely to contaminate their fish catch. However, the photograph became part of a Japanese postage stamp.

In 1915 the German U-boat U28 sighted a huge creature rather like a Plesiosaur as they sank the British ship SS Iberian. Herr-Commander George Gunter Freiherr von Forstner described it in his ships log that it was 60 feet long with webbed feet and crocodillian in type.

Evolutionists tell us dinosaurs died out 60 million years ago before man existed. If this is the case why do we find cave drawings and rock carvings of dinosaurs, footprints of man and dinosaurs from the same rock strata? Many of these can be found in the Grand Canyon, Colorado, Glen Rose, Texas and Hava Super River Gorge.

Mordividus, king of ancient Britons from whom today's Welsh are descended, whose name would appear as Morydd in the Welsh Chronicles, was killed and eaten by a large reptilian monster in 336 BC. Geoffrey of Monmouth translated the account into Latin giving the monster it's Latin name of Belua. The account says it gulped down the body of Morvidus as a big fish swallows a little one.

The Welsh have many accounts of dinosaur type monsters. These are often referred to as the AFANC and the CARROG. The Afanc was around until quite recently and is remembered in the place names of Bedd-yr-Afanc near Brynberian, Dyfed. Another is near where I used to live above Bettws-y-Coed at a place called Llyn-yr-Afanc. The Afanc was killed by Edward Llwyd in 1693. The Carrog is remembered at Dol-y-Carrog in the Vale of Conwy and at Carrog near Corwen.

There are so many other accounts of dinosaur type monsters causing problems. Some of these places are Lyminister, Deerhurst, Lanbton (the well known Lambton Worm legend in the north east of England), Christchurch, Slingsby, Sockburn, Wantley, Bisterne, Brent Pelham, Little Conrad, Spindlestone Heughs, Wissington and Wormiston.

It is well known that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his wife saw a plesiosaur off one of the Greek islands in 1928. Others have reported seeing a dinosaur type monster in Australia and in Zimbabwe and one 20 feet long "dragon" in Indonesia. In the swamps of the River Congo in Africa the natives say there lives Mokele-Mbembe but there description of this monster resembles a dinosaur.

Many world wide sightings of dinosaurs have been reported throughout history. The Sioux Indians are said to have once found a dead Pterandodon. In 1649 a "large flying reptile" was seen at Mount Pilatus in Switzerland. Alexander the Great saw several dinosaurs in India. The last of many Triceratops was killed at Nerluc, France. Herodatus saw flying Rhamphorynchus in Egypt. At Bolognia in May 1572 Ulysses Aldrovandrus describes the death of what is reputed to be the last Tanystrophimus in Italy.

In 1887 Herr Professor Robert Koldeway discovered the gates of the ancient Biblical city of Babylon. He found carvings of dragons (amongst other things) built into the walls. These were found elsewhere in the city. It is said that they actually kept a dragon in their temple and worshipped it but it was killed by the prophet Daniel, according to legend.

There are many more stories, legends and factual accounts too numerous just to be dismissed. I suggest you investigate these yourself. To start you off I list some publications for you to read. You can also visit sites yourself. Most of this man and dinosaurs has been taken from the writings of Dr. W. R. Cooper but I also recommend the following reading:

"The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible." Paul Taylor.

"Dinosaurs - Those Terrible Lizards." Dr. Duane Gish.

"Monsters and Men." Brian Newton, Dunstone Printers.

"The Great Dinosaur Mistake." Kelly Segraves, Beta Books.

"Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs." John D. Morris, Bethany House.

"Dry Bones and Other Fossils." Gary E. Parker, Creation Life.

THE EPIC POEM "BEOWULF".

In the wise words of the song; "Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could..." (a less evolutionists have not learned.) Legends do not appear from nowhere. Trace back to the root and you will find the cause. The epic poem "Beowulf" is arguably the most remarkable and graphic of them all. There are many Nordic Sagas describing the giant reptiles encountered in northern Europe by the Danes and Saxons. These accounts go into great detail in places. In the Volsunga Saga the monster Fafnir was killed by Sigurd digging a pit and hiding in it. There he waited for the monster to pass over head to go for water and then attacked it's soft underbelly. It is obvious from this that the monster walked on all four legs and was close to the ground.

Bill Cooper has made a study of the Beowulf poem and it is clear it provides invaluable descriptions of the huge reptiles that roamed Denmark around the 6th century AD. He tells us that Beowulf is a historical figure who became a seasoned "dinosaur" hunter. He was famous for clearing certain areas and even sea lanes of these monsters. This poem preserves for us the physical descriptions of the animals and the names by which they were known to Saxons and Danes some 1,400 years ago.

The poem is clearly pre Christian. Mention is certainly made of God, creation and Cain but these are commonly found in ancient genealogies and other pagan records of the Saxons. No mention is made of Jesus or any Christian event.

Beowulf was born in 495 AD and at the age of 7 he was brought to the court of his grandfather Hrethel, King of Geatingas, a tribe who inhabited southern Sweden. The Geatish-Swedish wars took place during his youth. He then visited Hrothgar, King of the Danes in 515 AD during which time he slew the monster Grendel, as we shall see. He returned to his now uncles kingdom in 521 AD whose later death he avenged by slaying Daegrefn. He was invited to succeed his uncle but instead acted as regent to the young king Heardred during his minority. However, Heardred was killed by the Swedes in 533 AD and Beowulf became King of the Geatingas. He became a famous king reigning for 50 years until 583 AD aged 88 years.

What I am saying here is that these are real people and real events recorded in history. The references to monsters are part of the people and those events.

In line 1345 of the poem, Hrothgar tells how his people have seen two monsters haunting the moors. They describe them as bipedal and much larger than humans. One is a young male, Grendel and the other an older female, his mother. At line 1425 Beowulf follows their tracks back to their lair. His men can see other sea monsters swimming and swerving in the lake. They call them sea dragons. They are described as wreaking havoc in the lanes where the ships sail. These creatures are portrayed as figureheads on Saxon and Danish ships of old, says Bill Cooper.

THE NAME "GRENDEL" probably comes from the old Norse name "Grindill" meaning "storm" or "Grenja" meaning "bellow". It's reasonable to suppose "Grendel" is a descriptive name for something that growls, perhaps a deep throated growl. It was clearly not the pet name for one of these creatures but the name of the species in general. It is interesting to note that in an Anglo-Saxon charter from King Athelstan's time, dated 931 AD, we read of a "Grendels- mere" (a lake where such animals live) in Wiltshire. It is also found in place names in northern Europe, in Alpine regions such as, "Grindelwald". In middle ages English "Grindel" meant "angry".

THE WICKEDNESS OF GRENDEL is described in the poem. He filled with terror the people on whom he preyed. He was a demon who was "Synnum beswenched" (aflicted with sins). He was "godes ansaca" (God's adversary). He was the "synsscatha" (evil doer). The "wonsaeli" (damned). A "feond on helle" (fiend from hell). He was from the race of the "grund-wyrgen" (monsters descended from Cain). These people did not imagine Grendel, they held him in sheer terror, sheer horror!

THE PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF GRENDEL and habits are also contained in the poem. He was a youngster having preyed on the Danes for 12 years before Beowulf heard of him. He was bipedal, standing upright like a man. His two small forelimbs the Saxons called, "eorms" (arms). Beowulf tore off one of these. The monster slew with his mouth or jaws, a "muthbona". He devoured his human prey with great speed, therefore his jaws must have been large and powerful, perhaps like a crocodile. Beowulf knew his hide was too tough for him to use his sword and therefore went for it's weakest point, it's forelimb and tore it off. Grendel is described as the "Aeglaeca" (ugly one), "atol aegegea" (terrifying solitary one). He was the "mearcestapa" - the march stepper or the one who stalked the marches or boundaries. He was the "sceadugenga" the shadow goer that descended on his prey at night when they were asleep. He came down from the "mistige moras" (misty moors) as the "deathscua" (shadow of death). They employed a "eotanweard" (a watcher for giants) who was often surprised himself and eaten.

The Iguanoden and the Tyrannosaurs both fit this description yet they were only "discovered" in the mid 19th century and given these modern names. According to evolutionists, Beowulf could not possibly have slain such a beast as they did not exist. What do you think? If you're still in doubt take a look at Bishop Bell's tomb in Carlisle Cathedral as mentioned earlier.

Many other monsters have been recorded too numerous to detail. They lived in a large swamp or lake and called "wyrmcynnes" (a worm kind of monster). There were "saedracon" (sea dragons), "niceras" (water monsters), "wyrmas" (giant serpents), "wildeor" (wild beasts), "ythgewinnes" (wave thrashers).

Beowulf was killed aged 88 slaying a reptile they called a "Widfloga" (wideflyer) having a wing span of about 50 feet and living to about 300 years old. Reptiles live to a great age. This description fits the giant Pteranoden.

THE EVIDENCE TELLS US DINOSAURS WERE AROUND UNTIL QUITE RECENTLY. To the open minded this is the only conclusion to which we can come. These terrible lizards were called other names in history whether that name be "Leviathan" or "Grendel" or any other, the illustrations and descriptions are the same. We have even seen is quite likely fire breathing dragons existed. We have seen the dating of dinosaur remains is untrustworthy and that even unfossilised remains have been found. Traditions and legends also show of recent existence of dinosaurs. It is difficult to see what other proof is needed but if you don't believe in God it is difficult to accept the evidence. Instead of dinosaurs proving evolution took place, they prove quite the opposite. As we shall see, the Bible's explanation as to what killed most but not all of the dinosaurs is backed up by the evidence.


MAMMOTH.

Although not a dinosaur before we leave this subject we must see what the Mammoth can tell us about whether evolution or creation took place. There are many theories as to when these "giant elephants" became extinct, some theories as late as 40,000 years ago, others much earlier.

Many Mammoths have been discovered in the northern regions of the earth, still preserved and frozen in the ice in Canada and Siberia. What on earth were they doing there? They needed 180kg of vegetation each day to stay alive so they could not possibly have lived in the arctic regions, could they? - Yet there they are freshly frozen as perfect as your Sunday joint of meat, perfectly edible. They have been found whole, not decomposed, with a fresh meal in their stomachs. The Berescovka Mammoth, housed in the St. Petersburg Museum, 15kgs of half digested food was removed from it's stomach. Many other creatures alien to the arctic have been found frozen and complete such as Rhinoceroses, elephants, musk oxen and wild horses.

There can be only one conclusion draw from this, that the earths climate suddenly changes in a matter of a few hours. The evidence shows beyond any doubt that these animals were eating happily one minute and then engulfed in soil and quick frozen the next. They have remained in that state ever since. The contents of the mammoths stomach are now only found in mild climates in July. They could not possibly have lived where they have been found without a sudden climate change. Scientists tell us that from grazing on a summers day the mammoths would have experienced a sudden drop in temperature to at least -100 degrees C.

You see the evidence again points not to the slow uniformitarianism of the evolutionists but the devastating cataclysm of the Bible.

Dino-rific

ahhhhh you are my inspiration tanya dino....gigglesnort.

George Carlin lives - he's alive, he's alive



I think this is quite possibley the funniest thing I think I've ever seen being passed off for truth in all of these threads.

that's as far as I got, becasue to be quite honest, if I'm going to read this first and the following is many pages worth of writing, I suddenly don't see the humor in it anymore.

What is the point of this thread anyway?
Try condensing it or maybe just making one point. Then we don't have to read so much to decide whether you're trying to be funny or trying to make a point. Thanks for your consideration of others time.

I am not going quote this whole thing but I have to say ..... THANKS FOR THE LAUGH!!!!! I haven't laughed this hard in a long long time.

Isn't it funny what we WILL believe to further our own agenda???...lol

Maybe I shouldn't have, but with Feral, I always start with the bottom, I meant, ... the conclusion!!!

Here is feral conclusion:




You are so close to getting it right sometime Feral!

I 'believe' you are about to be freed!

awe that was a good laugh. Ah ha!

I must disagree with the Beowulf reference, i highly doubt it was a dinosaur that killed the town but more like a frog type creature (since its home was underwater).

mine2

I am pretty sure most of the evidence points to dinosaurs being extinct before man came to be. Yes they have found evidence of large craters in the ocean that could have cause the death of the Dinosaurs. Have you heard of ELEs or Extinction Level Events? If a meteor was large enough, it could put enough debris in the atmosphere to block out the Sun for a couple of years. Since Dinosaurs are cold blooded they need the sun to keep their body temperature up. This debris would drastically lower temperatures and many if not all the Dinosaurs would die. Mammals would have a better time surviving since our bodies produce their own heat. Its just a theory, but I think its a pretty decent one.

deb wrote.....

Well, looking at that list I don't think it's the dinosaurs that are stupid - do you?! I remind you the evolutionists latest theory as to what wiped out the dinosaurs is that a massive asteroid hit the earth and killed them. They have discovered "evidence" of this in the Gulf of Mexico. He says this is the "smoking gun". "It is proof positive of the impact." Actually it proves nothing. Any school child can tell you the earth has often been bombarded with asteroids - so what? So they've found evidence of one of them but it doesn't mean it killed the dinosaurs. Previous evidence from sediment suggests that the dinosaurs did not become extinct at exactly the same time as the impact occurred." Oh, well, that's another theory blown!



funny how this followed the initial humor.

where this lands is up to the intent reader.

don't look up

Should of read more those are the sarcastic ones.....that evolutionist have believed over the years......






TRUTH BABY TRUTH

yea it's harder when it's smacking upside their heads.......truth will set you all free...




I



AM




ALREADY FREE





TYVM





And watch now how theys stoop to personally attack me...there fav pastime....





Well just remember





Stick and stones


Will break my bones




BUT



GOD




WILL ALWAYS PROTECT ME.

"The caterpillars ate up their eggs." It sounds like an 8 year old kid wrote this. If these creation folks are going to attempt to pass of this literature as "scientific research", they might want to rethink their phrasing on a few of these key concepts. Trust me; you won’t be scoring any points in the scientific community with this dribble. They will eat you for breakfast.

Ever hear of the Gap Theory.

Feel free to explain it if you like.

It's another creationist theory that basically there is a gap of millions of years between Genesis Chap 1 and 2.

Hey it's not my belief I know what happen it's the evolutionist over the years.

The Gap Theory:

Another defuggletee in the eyes of "Man"

Introduction

I am arguing the affirmative - that is, I am arguing that gap theory is incompatible with an inerrantist hermeneutic. There are two fundamental things that need to be clarified


1) What is the "Gap Theory"?

2) What is meant by an "Inerrantist hermeneutic"?

Gap Theory

When it comes to the Bible, there are five1 main theological theories about how to interpret what it says about the age of the Earth and the timing of its creation. Two of these are types fall into the category of gap theory. These five theories are:

a) "Young Earth Literalism" The Old Testament is literally correct, and the Earth was created in six 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago.

b) "Metaphor" The Old Testament should not be taken as literal history, but is instead a set of metaphorical stories designed to teach us. As such, it tells us nothing about the age of the Earth.

These first two interpretations of the Bible are by far the most common ones amongst modern Christians. They are also the simplest of the interpretations, either accepting or rejecting a literal reading wholesale without needing to argue any special cases or special contexts.

c) "Day-Age Creationism" The Old Testament is correct, but the English translation of the Hebrew yom2 as "day" throughout Genesis 1 is incorrect and the correct interpretation should be "age". Therefore the Earth is 6,000 years plus 6 "ages" old. Given that an "age" is an indeterminate period of time3, this tells us nothing about the age of the Earth.

Day-Age Creationism is a less common interpretation that the previous two, and is the main alternative to gap theory for people who hold both an inerrantist view and a view that the Earth is older than a straight reading of the Bible would indicate.

d) "Two Perspectives" The Old Testament is historically correct, and the Earth was created in six literal 24-hour days as detailed in Genesis 1. However, there is a gap of unspecified length between this 6-day creation and the creation of Adam and Eve as detailed in Genesis 2-3.

e) "Ruin-Reconstruction" The Old Testament is historically correct. However, there is a gap of unspecified length between the first one (or two) verses of Genesis 1 and the rest of Genesis 1. Therefore, the six literal 24-hour days described in Genesis 1 do not refer to the initial creation of the Earth (and universe) but refer to a remodelling of the Earth 6,000 years ago. Often, the angelic war and Satan’s fall are mentioned by gap theorists as being the possible reason that the Earth required remodelling.

These last two are the two types of "Gap Theory", and are therefore the two theories that this debate will focus on.

Inerrantist Hermeneutic

Rather than quibble with an individual definition of what an inerrantist hermeneutic is, I am going to defer to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy since this is the standard for most American churches that hold inerrant doctrines. The summary of the Chicago Statement4 is as follows (my own emphasis):

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

As can be seen from the emphasised clauses, inerrancy of this sort requires historically accurate truth, not simply metaphorical theological truth. In other words, when the Bible says that Adam ate from a fruit that Eve gave him, it is telling a historical truth that there was a physical person called Adam and he did physically eat from a fruit. It is not, for example, merely stating a metaphorical truth about the nature of temptation without the implication that the events described actually happened.

Similarly, when the Bible says that God created fruit bearing trees before he created the sun and moon, it means that he physically created fruit bearing trees before he created the sun and moon (whether it was the "day" before or the "age" before depending on how you want to translate yom).

One further clarification of inerrancy is needed. The Bible is only considered inerrant in the original manuscripts. Naturally, since we do not have any of the original manuscripts, this poses something of a problem. Therefore, for the sake of argument, I will be assuming that the ancient texts we do have (the Septuagint, the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls) are likely to be closer to the original manuscripts than modern English translations, due to both their age and the fact that they have been through fewer (if any) translations. For the purposes of this debate, I will assume that these ancient texts are the same as the inerrant original autographs in all cases where they are in concordance with each other, and only in cases where they differ from each other shall I assume that they also differ from the original autographs.

The Incompatibility of Gap Theory and Inerrancy

Now we have got the definitions and assumptions out of the way, we get to my actual argument - that Gap Theory is incompatible with an inerrant reading of the Bible. I
will be ignoring the "Two Perspectives" version gap theory, and concentrating instead on the "Ruin-Restoration" version of gap theory. This is partly because this second version is the more sophisticated version of the theory, and partly because it is the version that my opponent has previously claimed is close to his own views.

My main arguments in support of this incompatibility are as follows:

1) The wording of the creation account itself

2) Other Biblical references to the creation of the world

The Wording of the Creation Account

The Biblical account of the creation of the world and everything in it is found in the first two chapters of Genesis. A common English translation (the one used by the King James Bible) of the first chapter is as follows:


Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 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.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

As can be seen, on a plain reading of the English, this appears to say that from when God started creating the Earth to when he had finished took a total of six consecutive days - normal days with mornings and evenings. Needless to say, the Ruin-Reconstruction theory says that this plain reading is a misinterpretation - based on inaccurate translation of the Hebrew and that when translated and interpreted properly, the first two verses should be as follows (my emphasis):

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [Gap of thousands or millions or even billions of years goes here] The earth became ruined, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

By this interpretation, God creates the Earth, in an unspecified time frame, and then - an unspecified amount of time later - the Earth is ruined. Then God reconstructs the Earth in six days.

So, does the Hebrew support this translation?

Unfortunately for Gap Theorists, it doesn’t.

Firstly, let’s look at the start of verse 2 where the alleged gap is. When doing so, we should remember that the splitting of the text into verses is a relatively modern phenomenon - and that the original texts have no such divisions.

Verse 2, starts with the Hebrew waw, which is a general purpose conjunction that can be translated into English as "and", "but", "then" and so on. The particular waw in Genesis 2:1 is what is called the "Disjunctive Waw" or "Copulative Waw". This Hebrew grammatical structure (where a waw precedes a non-verb word) is rather specific in meaning. The best English equivalent is punctuation rather than a word, and is the opening of parentheses. Another acceptable translation would be the English phrase "to wit".5

This usage is distinct from the other uses of waw to join phrases or clauses in the Genesis 1 account between the descriptions of what happens on each day. These waws are "Consecutive Waws" - where the closest English meaning is "and" or "and then" and - as the name "Consecutive Waw" implies - the word is used to separate consecutive events.

Therefore, the meaning of the join between verses 1 and 2 is best written by having the first part of verse 2 as a parenthetical adjunct to verse 1.

The next bone of contention is the word hayetah in verse 2. All English translations of the Bible that I have seen translate this word as "was" - as in "the Earth was...". Gap theorists claim that the proper translation for this word should be "became", as shown above.

Again, this is grammatically impossible. The verb is used in the "qual", third person, perfect tense in this verse. In every other instance of the word being used in this tense in the Old Testament (and there are several hundred of them) the proper translation is the English "was" - indicating a static past tense state of being.

The word is occasionally used (a total of six times) to show a change of state of being (translated as "became") in other contexts, for example in Genesis 19:26 where Lot’s wife becomes a pillar of salt, but in each of these cases there is a specific one-thing-changing-into-something-else context to support this usage.

Finally, there are the words tohu and bohu. These are interpreted by gap theorists to have a perjorative meaning indicating that the world was corrupted (by Satan’s fall) or cursed (by God in reaction to Satan’s fall). Whilst there are two occasions where these words are used in such a perjorative manner (e.g. in Isaiah 34:11), the vast majority of their usage merely indicates desert like conditions with no perjorative meaning attached.

Putting this together, we see that the best translation of Genesis 1:1-2 is as follows:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (and the earth was desolate, and empty; and darkness was upon the face of the deep). And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

As you can see, there is simply no place for a gap of any significant time between verses 1 and 2 and there is simply no indication that the events of verses 3 onwards should be taken as a recreation of a ruined Earth rather than as a description of the events taking place during the original creation talked about in verse 1.

Other Biblical Reference

As well as the wording of the Genesis 1 creation account not being compatible with gap theory, the theory also conflicts with what is said elsewhere in the Bible.

The most prominent of these conflicts is with the version of the 10 commandments in Exodus 20:9-11, which says...


Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

There is no need to pay special attention to the Hebrew here. It is quite plain and unambiguous. The reason for keeping Sabbath is because God made heaven and earth in six days. Not because God made heaven and earth in an indeterminate amount of time and then spent six days repairing it.

This emphasis is repeated in Exodus 31:


Exo 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Exo 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

I will leave other Biblical references until a later round, since they rely on the specific theological reasoning for Gap Theory that its proponent gives forth.

Summary

I have shown what I mean by "Gap Theory" and what I mean by an "Inerrantist Hermeneutic".

I have shown that when the Hebrew of Genesis 1 is examined, there is no reason to come to a conclusion that the author intends us to understand that there should be a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 - and indeed the author appears to have gone out of his way to distinguish this from the verses later in the chapter where a gap (of a day) is indicated.

I have also shown (one example of) how gap theory contradicts other places in the Bible.

To sum up, I have demonstrated that there is no textual reason for an inerrantist to embrace (or even accept) gap theory.

PERSONAL ATTACKS!!!

What is the meaning of this!!!

We all love you. While I don't agree with just about any of the things you write, I am clear that I love you in a universal kind of way, and have lots of compassion for you!

As I keep repeating to you feral, I am absolutely clear that your Heart is in the right place. The fact that I am struck with amazement everytime I read the stuff that comes out of 'mind', does not distract me, or dilute the fact that your heart (IMO) speaks volumes louder than your mind!!!

To refer to any of this as personal attacks would be pathetic!!!

I for one can't think you would stoop so low FERAL!!!

So just re-word your thoughts so they fall in line with your heart! How's that!!!