Its known that dinosaurs existed milions of years ego, but based on the bible earth was created 7000 years ego

Question

Obviesly, if u dont believe what the bible says your gonna say that earth was created millions of year ego also but, im asking the logic behind this from those who do believe in the bible.

Answer 1

From what I understand, the Bible believers have traced the story back using the generations of people in the Bible, and that's where they get the figure. It's ridiculous. And, if you've ever watched Inherit the Wind (and if you haven't, you should), you could actually reconcile the Bible with scientific evidence by remembering that, if the sun was not created until the 4th day in Genesis, well, you don't know how long a day is, do you? That first day could be millions of years long because there was no way to measure a day.
Then there's the easy answer: the Bible is fiction, and you can't use fiction to do scientific calculations.

Answer 2

The first clause in the first sentence of your statement is false. It is not known that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. This is a Darwinian theory whicjh has no factual evidence to support it. The earth is about 6000 years old as the Bible teaches. Lets look at just 2 of the real facts .

1 The so called geologic collum dates fossils by the rock layer they are in. how do they date the rock layers? By the age of the fossils. This is circular reasoning. The carbon 14, and potassium -argon radiometric dating are not based on observable fact. They make assumptions , thats right , assumptions on how much of the radio active substance was present at the creation or big bang of the universe and then date fossils based on that assumption. It is like coming into a room and seeing a candle burning on the table and saying that candle has been burning for x amount of years based on an assumption of how tall the candle was when it was lit. All that you know about the candle is that it is burning and how fast it is burning now. You dont know when it was lit, or if it always burned at the same rate. Assumption is not fact.

2 Dinosaur tracks and human tracks have been found at Glen Rose Texas in the same layer of limestone. The only way that could happen is that in the same day or days before the pre limestone was covered with another layer is that a both dinosaur and man walked on that layer. So much for the theory that Dinosaurs lived millions of years before man. That is a joke to say the least and a bad joke at that, because darwinists have made sure that we indoctrinate our children in public school with " once upon a time millions of years ago"

What do you think the dragon slayers slew? Dinosaurs of course. Come to Christ

Answer 3

Actually, the Bible says the earth and everything in it was created in 6 days, on the 7th day Jehovah began his day of rest...which is not yet over.

The 'days' of God are not our 24 hour days. Was all physical creation accomplished in just six days sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years?

The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1) Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2) End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.” However, the Hebrew word translated “day” has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length.

Answer 4

Thats a very oversimplified assumption. Those "young earth creationists" who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old indeed, but they are in the minority. That is also roughly based on an estimation from geneologies which probably have gaps and really isnt anything to go by.

The earth could be that old if God had created the earth with the appearance of age as he did with Adam and Eve.

Contrary to what youve been told, it is not Science VS the Bible. Brain VS spirit. Both can view the evidence accordingly and explain them through their worldview.

Answer 5

exciting outlook... The registration of time is a man made element. inspite of "cutting-edge" units to grant us some perception into how previous the earth is, the celebrities are , how some distance away or the age of prehistoric fossils and guy, we ought to continuously agree on one concern. they are all man made calculations, and therefor concern to being incorrect. Even the thought that the earth is barely 6000 years previous got here from a guy who calculated this from anceint text cloth. Granted the text cloth may well be "supported" by way of archaeological findings, suposition or maybe some guess artwork. yet then so are lots of the organic sciences. How some distance off ought to any calculation be, organic or religious? that is yet another question to be debated. i'm a "borderline". I even have studied the organic sciences maximum of my person existence and that i carry a PhD in Comparative faith. that's barely conceivable that some day we can locate out--yet i could be extra worried if the caluclations of having the flexibility to knock an asteroid out of the earths path have been better than the calculations of the time tables for dinosaurs or God. Dr. Tommy Skelton

Answer 6

The Radio-Carbon 14 Isotope dating process is based upon an unprovable assumption. Therefore, it should not be relied upon by science to determine a conclusive scientific fact.

The Bible mentions dinosaur-like animals that co-existed with mankind. ("Dinosaur" is a word coined in modern times.)

The books of Job, Psalms, Isaiah and others all make mention of either Leviathan, Behemoth, or dragon. Physical descriptions are found in Job 40 & 41 of these beasts.

The Bible supports good science.
Bad science supports nothing.

Answer 7

Actually, the Bible says nothing of the age of the Earth. A Protestant minister wrote down some numbers (complete with errors), loosely based on the Bible, and that has been doctrine since.

Answer 8

The validity of a young earth vs the validity of an old earth depends on where you look, and HOW you look. The old earth view is based totally in the physical realm of time and space and science is at peace with it since science can only accept as theory that which it can prove.

Most physical sciences are based on one presupposition. That is, that all physical evidence is a constant. That is, over the years they have never changed. There is much evidence (that many scientists will poo poo) that entropy and decay effects everything that is of matter and even energy. So what is your constant? On what can you base your math? There really is too many variants to be dogmatic in any of the sciences.

God is eternal and cannot be subject to testing and scrutiny. God designed it to be that way for the purpose of free will choice. To see which you desire to cling to for your personal doctrine of origin. The problem is, upon death you go from the physical to the eternal, and there, all that you concluded regarding science, will be of no value. Remember Esau and do not trade your destiny for a bowl of beans.
Science has no hope for what occurs after life ceases. It has nothing on which to observe or test. Once a person dies, and is dead for a day or two--science, in all its knowledge, cannot bring them back for discovery for what lies beyond.

Jesus was dead for three days, and proved that He had the keys to death and the grave by raising Himself from the dead. He made clear what to expect in the afterlife. He provides free access to eternal life if you would just believe His report.

It seems as if science today is more concerned with discrediting the given evidence in order to hold on to its own lack of knowledge. And thus, those who hold to science for their religion, choose the dangerous road of "taking ones chances that the Bible is false" regarding the afterlife. A dangerous gamble indeed seeing eternity is in the balance.

Science is limited to the physical. Your soul is eternal. The Bible deals with what is eternal where science cannot venture. The physical realm will pass away, and science will pass away with it. What you want to do is latch onto that which will last forever, and that is the Word of God.

Science deals with understanding and comprehending creation. Religion deals with the understanding and comprehension of the Creator.

1 Peter 1:23-25
...having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, because

All flesh is as grass,
And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass.
The grass withers,
And its flower falls away,
But the word of the LORD endures forever.

Answer 9

Did you every stop to think that maybe God created fossils just to play a joke on people like you? Maybe there were no dinosaurs, just the fossils. Now that would be funny right there.

Answer 10

Fossils don’t come with labels telling you how old they are. So, what about radiometric dating methods; don’t they prove millions of years? These are far from infallible—they are indirect methods based on quite a few assumptions, and evolutionary geologists themselves will often not accept a radiometric date unless they think it’s correct (i.e. it matches what they already believe). There are plenty of scientists who question their accuracy. For instance, the “RATE” project has discovered several striking examples of contradictions in these dating methods. If you want, you can get their book or movie called Thousands...Not Billions and learn about some of their remarkable results. If you do a bit of research, you will find that there is a lot of proof of radiometric dating not being accurate (like dates of millions of years for lava flows that occurred in the past few hundred years or even decades).

OK, is there evidence of younger dates for dinosaur fossils? Oh yeah. In 1981, scientists identified unfossilized dinosaur bones which had been found in Alaska 20 years earlier. Philip J. Currie (an evolutionist) wrote about this and some similar finds, “An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.” As Dr. Margaret Helder has said, “How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were not preserved by cold. Everyone recognizes that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the time when the dinosaurs lived.”

In 1990 a sample of various dinosaur bones were sent to the University of Arizona for a “blind” Carbon-14 dating procedure. “Blind” in the sense that they didn’t tell them what the bones were. The oldest date they got was 16 thousand years. Now I don’t think they are even that old, but that’s a far cry from the millions of years evolutionists suggest. If dinosaurs became extinct more than 65 million years ago, there should be no carbon-14 left in their bones. Evolutionist of course say the samples must have been contaminated.

In 1990, Scientists from the University of Montana found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized and even found what appeared to be blood cells in them. Dr. Mary Schweitzer said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” How indeed?

And then in 2005, they found an even greater discovery. Science Daily website said (March 25, 2005): “Dr. Mary Schweitzer . . . has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.” As Dr. David Menton said, “It certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.” Wouldn’t that be a hit for the meat industry if we could figure out how to preserve meat for so long?

This evidence fits much better with Noah’s flood 4-5 thousand years ago, and a recent extinction of dinosaurs.

So, where are all the human fossils with dinosaurs? Actually, where are all the human fossils with any animals? Human fossils are extremely rare, and that’s what you would expect since they would have survived the longest in the flood. As Dr. Jonathon Sarfati said, “The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface, where post-Flood erosion would destroy most evidence of their existence. Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure...”

With that line of reasoning, you can’t prove that man and Dodo birds lived together since their fossils are not found together. If human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren’t buried together. It is pretty unlikely that humans and dinosaurs would live together for the most part (Would you choose to live near a large carnivorous dinosaur?).

Another thing you have to realize is that 95% of all fossils are marine organisms and 95% of that remaining 5% were plants. The percentage of the remaining animals is extremely small. So, we should not expect to find many human fossils at all, and we don’t.

Besides, the evidence from the jumbled up bone fragments can easily be misinterpreted. They have confused a dolphin’s rib for a human collarbone and an extinct pig’s tooth for a human tooth before. Couldn’t they make similar mistakes concerning human and dinosaur fossils? Especially since they are looking at the evidence from an evolutionary paradigm. Given the amount of sedimentary rock, we still have a great deal more to explore. There is still the possibility of finding human fossils in the lower levels of Flood sediment and along with dinosaurs.

And actually, more than once, there have been fossilized human footprints found along with dinosaur footprints. As you know, the evolutionists just quickly dismiss the evidence or try to get it discredited. They have to—it doesn’t fit their paradigm.

In a copper mine in Moab, Utah, two human skeletons were found in Cretaceous sandstone (supposedly more than 65 million years old, back in the time of the dinosaurs). So what did they say? They must have fallen down to that level somehow or were recently buried there.

In 2005, there was an interesting report by the Associated Press: “Villagers digging in China’s rich fossil beds have uncovered the preserved remains of a tiny dinosaur in the belly of a mammal, a startling discovery for scientists who have long believed early mammals couldn’t possibly attack and eat a dinosaur.” It was a dog type of creature. Evolutionists had previously said that no advanced mammals lived during the time of the dinosaurs. But, the more we dig, the more this kind of stuff is found.

For decades, evolutionists taught that coelacanths (a type of fish) became extinct about the same time as the dinosaurs (65 million years ago). Because its fossils looked “prehistoric” and because of its large fins, scientists speculated that the large fins evolved into feet and that its descendants eventually walked out of the sea. That’s until Dec. 24, 1938 when a five foot long coelacanth was caught off the coast of S. Africa. Since then, over 100 of them have been caught and researchers have found that Indonesian fisherman had been selling coelacanths in their fish markets for years. Guess what, the coelacanths are still using their fins to swim, not walk. No fossils of coelacanths have ever been found in the same layers as human fossils, but they have been found in the same layers as dinosaur fossils—yet we know coelacanths and humans lived together, because they do today.

In 1994, the Wollemi pine tree was found in Australia (also said to have become extinct with the dinosaurs). Professor Carrick Chambers said, “The discovery is the equivalent of finding a small dinosaur still alive on Earth.” Before these were found, if you would have said, “I believe that coelacanths and humans or the wollemi pine tree and humans lived together,” they would have said you were nuts. Just because we don’t find fossils of certain creatures or plants together with humans in the fossil record, it doesn’t mean they didn’t live together.