Posted on 04/14/2009 8:36:29 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Dinosaur herd buried in Noah’s Flood in Inner Mongolia, China
by Tas Walker Published: 14 April 2009
An international team of scientists have uncovered graphic evidence of the deadly terror unleashed on a herd of dinosaurs as they were buried under sediment by the rising waters of Noah’s Flood in western Inner Mongolia (figure 1).[1]
Dinosaur bones were first discovered at the site, located at the base of a small hill in the Gobi Desert, in 1978 by a Chinese geologist. After about 20 years, a team of Chinese and Japanese scientists recovered the first skeletons, which they named Sinornithomimus, meaning “Chinese bird mimic”.
A few years later in 2001, the international team excavated the remains of more than 25 dinosaurs, creating a large quarry in the process as they as they followed the skeletons into the base of the hill. Remarkable excavation
As the team carefully mapped the location of the bones and strata that contained them (figure 2), it became clear that the dinosaurs were all within the same layer of mudstone (i.e. the same bedding plane), generally facing the same direction and remarkably well preserved.[2]...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
How about the jellyfish? It’s highly complex in its feeding mechanism, and highly efficient in motion. Yet it’s method of propulsion is incredibly simple, not complex at all.
Complexity is not required by evolution! A monkey’s tail is considerably more complex than that of the gorilla or human (we both have essentially none - just a few remnant bones), and it serves the needs of the monkey quite well - an animal that is very light.
Likewise a bird’s skeleton. Considerably less dense and complex than a human’s, but that is what allows it to fly.
To say that evolution preferred anything beyond single celled organisms (the required starting point) - that are perfectly efficient over an organism with millions of cells pumping this or that chemical out to regulate the organism or help it eat is such a contradiction that it makes no sense.
“decided to begin with Adam, for lack of anymore ‘hard history.”
This explanation would satisfy the question of how Cain left the family and found his wife (unrelated to Adam and Eve).
Likewise, to say that science points to a YEC viewpoint makes no sense. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
That’s nuts... I mean, heck! You call this evidence of a flood?
Let me tell you what went down. You see what had happened was a T-Rex was sipping a glass of lemonade as he strolled through the wetlands on his way to tai-chi class. Well, you know that would be a BIG glass of lemonade by anybody’s terms. So you see he trips on a rock falling forward spilling his lemonade. The torrent that ensued caused a flood that trapped and killed the surrounding dinosaurs.
You Creationists don’t know nothin’! SHEESH!!!
Make that millions of years. 64 million years, in fact.
Not really. But what is a contradiction is that it is never mentioned in the bible that god created the single celled organisms ....
“errr no it’s not what you’d expect fool.”
No, but THAT is what I’d expect. The Bible says a lot about fools and you might look over the Biblical definitions.
Please explain what you mean by *not compatible with modern mathematics*.
You are right. That is not from religion; it is from some creationist's anti-evolution website specializing in distorting the truth.
“this also be a reference to elephants?”
“His tail sways like a cedar”
Huh? Sounds like an elephant to me. Many a man has been killed by that massive, swinging elephant tail.
Anyways... a reference to each individual creature God created is nowhere to be found in the bible, just general references to animal groups not breeds.
“Surely they would have been quoted as Gods terrible judgement upon mankind.”
There was no animal mentioned in the Bible of any type that was a judgment on mankind. The serpent was cursed by God and the Bible does say he would bite our heel for all of our lives, but not another I can think of. You seem to know little about the Bible. From what direction do you argue then?
P.S. I usually include “All” in my replies when I think they are at the very least well reasoned. What was your purpose here?
Define "animal." Nephesh? Locusts and Frogs spring to mind, if not.
“We are made in the image of God, correct? If you and I have belly buttons, then not only must all other people - who are made in the same image - but God must have a belly button, too!”
I don’t think so... we all have a belly button because we had the ol’ umbrella cord attached. No umbrella cord = no belly button.
We’re made in the image of God, but God always was so He therefore had no mother. No mother = no belly button.
But then whatever you think about this ain’t gonna keep nobody from the pearly gates! Fun to talk about though.
Tut, tut!
Although locusts are not animals, I’ll play that game. Locusts and frogs were not used in the judgment of mankind. They were used for specific plagues on a rebellious King and his people. The statement was in relation to judgment on a broader scale as I read it. And if you use that argument you have to show me which of the plagues included skunks and chipmunks because although there were no dinosaurs used in the plagues there were also no warthogs or gerbils...
Just because you say god always was does not preclude him from having a mother.
> He therefore had no mother. No mother = no belly button.<
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp
Mary: Mother of God
Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.
A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3).
Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.
Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God “in the flesh” (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.
To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.
The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinct persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the “Nestorian” church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.
Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.
The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and the following passages witness to their lively recognition of the sacred truth and great gift of divine maternity that
“I will also admit that I do not know why we can see light from stars that are millions of light years away. My honest opinion is that God created a world that was fully functional, meaning that the light from those stars was visible to earth from the time of creation. That is the best theory I have”.
You really should update yourself on the creationist talking points,
This comes from the Creation Ministries International web site under the heading
Arguments we think creationist should not use:
“‘Light was created in transit.’ Some older creationist works, as a solution to the distant starlight problem, proposed that God may have created the light in transit. But CMI long ago pointed out the problems with this idea.
It would entail that we would be seeing light from heavenly bodies that don’t really exist; and even light that seems to indicate precise sequences of events predictable by the laws of physics, but which never actually happened. This, in effect, suggests that God is a deceiver.
For example, when a large star explodes as a supernova, we see a neutrino burst before we see the electromagnetic radiation. This is because most neutrinos pass through solid matter as if it were not there, while light is slowed down. This sequence of events carries information recording an apparently real event. So astronomers are perfectly justified in interpreting this ‘message’ as a real supernova that exploded according to the laws of physics, with observations as predicted by those same laws.”
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
You raised the point, I pointed out a potential objection. We’re not in any serious level of disagreement, you and I.
Now, if you really want to stir things up, personally I lean to believing that “dinosaurs” were an abomination, not of His creation, and were a target of the Biblical flood, along with the evil, soulless hybrids that genetically engineered them. 1 Enoch recounts this quite well, as do several more oblique references in Canonical books, from Genesis to Numbers. As far as fossils, I’d be interested in seeing just how many have come from known ancient sites of human habitation.
Why do Africans have a higher incident of lactose intolerance than Europeans?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.