Best postive scientific evidence for an old universe/ earth

[TK]

in regard to dinosaurs and the Bible, I suppose that if one takes the position that they were killed in the flood and did not appear thereafter, then the lack of biblical reference would seem understandable, because the persons writing the earliest biblical texts would not have seen any. I would have to assume, however, that if the YE view is correct, then Noah and those preceding him lived among the dinosaurs.

I certainly am not totally against the possibility that "The Flintstones" might have portrayed better science than our modern dinosaur experts. Heck, perhaps when Noah built the ark he used brontosaurus in a way similar to the way Fred did in the rock quarry.

TK

[anochria]

aaronbdisney wrote:

but just reading the Bible without any input from the majority of scientific interpretation of geology would most naturally lead you to a young earth interpretation. At least that's how it seems to me.

How then do you explain ancient commentators flatly denying a 24 hr 7 day creation week?

Here are some examples:

Philo (20 BC- 45 AD): "It is foolish to think that the world was created in six days.... " "Six days were mentioned because for the things coming into existence there was need for order"

Josephus (37 AD- 103 AD) in his writings promised to offer an alternate explanation of day "Yom" but failed to do so as far as we know.

Justin Martyr ( AD 100-166) and Irenaeus (AD 130-200) argued that the Creation days were each 1,000 years long, based on a statement in Psalms that says "with the lord a day is like a thousand years".

Hippolytus (AD 170-236) and Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-220) say the days were not literal, twenty-four hour days.

Origen (AD 185-254) argued that since the 7th day hasn't finished yet, each of the other days must not have been 24 hours.

Augustine himself said, "At least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar"

I could go on throughout Church history before the scientific revolution, but these are some key ones from the earliest periods.

[steve]

The occasional encounter with a terrible lizard would be one way to explain them. I am not sure of a better explanation, though I would be willing to consider any suggestions.

Any suggestions?

[AaronBDisney]

anochria wrote:

Philo (20 BC- 45 AD): "It is foolish to think that the world was created in six days.... " "Six days were mentioned because for the things coming into existence there was need for order"

It is not foolish to believe our God is capable of speaking the world into existence in 6 days. Do you agree with Philo that God could not do this?

Josephus (37 AD- 103 AD) in his writings promised to offer an alternate explanation of day "Yom" but failed to do so as far as we know.

Well, this is far from a complete statement. Even if Josephus DID offer an explanation along the lines of these others you've listed, you must admit, he was not a Christian and understood things the way the natural man does. 1 Cor 2:14

Justin Martyr ( AD 100-166) and Irenaeus (AD 130-200) argued that the Creation days were each 1,000 years long, based on a statement in Psalms that says "with the lord a day is like a thousand years".

Then should we also conclude that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for 3 thousand years? That verse is not intended to give us the accurate period of time for the creation week. It is just to inform us that God does not get ancy, time is irrelevant to Him.

Hippolytus (AD 170-236) and Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-220) say the days were not literal, twenty-four hour days.

They certainly are entitled to their opinion, but I see no reason to go along with it based on their buying into an old earth. I think the point you're trying to make is that just simply reading the Bible does not necessarily lead you to a YEC interpretation. It may not, but speaking for myself, if I had no clue what the Bible contained and what others said, I would most definitely draw a young earth - 24 hour day creation week conclusion.
He almost bends over backwards to make this clearly seen. "the evening and the morning were the second day" and such. A day is one spin of the earth irrespective of anything else.

Origen (AD 185-254) argued that since the 7th day hasn't finished yet, each of the other days must not have been 24 hours.

He rested from His work on the seventh day, there is no need to mention the end of that day. There is an end to the sixth day mentioned though, so what should we conclude about the ages of Adam and Eve from that?

Augustine himself said, "At least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar"

I have many disagreements with Augustine. He may have been highly respected, but I've not found much I agree with him on.

These men may have doubted that God did all this in six days, why they doubt - I don't know. But it is clear that they need to make a distinction between what the scripture seems to be saying and what they think it means. I think what it seems to be saying is exactly what it's saying. If I'm wrong, big deal, but I don't think I am. I think it would make the Bible sound a little deceptive when it alludes to this subject.

[anochria]

I think the point you're trying to make is that just simply reading the Bible does not necessarily lead you to a YEC interpretation.

That was the only point I was trying to make, and I think I made it

As to your specific questions about the Biblical text, etc.., I think I'll start a thread along those lines.

[TK]

The occasional encounter with a terrible lizard would be one way to explain them. I am not sure of a better explanation, though I would be willing to consider any suggestions.

Any suggestions?

I have always been a "fan" of things like the loch ness monster, Champ in Lake Champlain, Ogopogo-- there is also a supposed brontosaurus type creature in the Congo. So i am certainly not AGAINST the possibility that dinosaur creatures might be alive. but alas, no solid proof has arisen.

As far as dragons go, there was actually a very interesting program on the History Channel not long ago that discussed the origins of dragon, and there was also some discussion regarding sea serpents that were shown in old drawings attacking ships, etc. in the sea, of course they are humongous things that might account for such sightings- giant squid for example.

I am not ruling out the possibility that dragons are left over fragments from dinosaur sightings. but they could be an embellishment of things that people knew about-- giant snakes like anacondas or spitting cobras and things of that nature.

we are taught that at one time dinosaurs were the dominant species on the earth. this may not have been the actual case, but their mere size alone would seem to have merited some specific mention in ancient writings, biblical or otherwise.

TK

[anochria]

I'd just like to point out that although I don't think Job or other early biblical writers lived simultaneously with dinosaurs per se, it is highly probably that the book of Job is describing now extinct/ pre-historic animals. The animals that were apparently around at the advent of man were pretty beastly in their own right (saber toothed tigers, giants sloths, etc..)

[AaronBDisney]

How about Behemoth?
Job 40
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

He moves his tail like a cedar. I'm not sure how you move a cedar tree, but I assume it means his tail is similar to a cedar tree. I've heard people talk about this as though it could be a mommoth or an elephant. If so, the description of the tail is a little deceptive. It is also said to be the 'chief' of the ways of God. I take this to mean it is the mightiest and biggest of God's created things. This could only be one of the larger dinosaurs.....

I wasn't sure, so I looked up the largest of the dinosaurs. Good luck pronouncing it but it's called a Bruhathkayosaurus
Here is a pic of it....I think it fits pretty good with the limited description from Job....

http://th06.deviantart.net/fs27/300W/i/ ... T_PEKC.jpg

[anochria]

But this beast in question, if not mythical, need only be the 'chief of the ways of God' among the current sample of animals at the time of the writing of Job.

[AaronBDisney]

But this beast in question, if not mythical, need only be the 'chief of the ways of God' among the current sample of animals at the time of the writing of Job.

I guess it could be, but the speaker is God himself, and if he'd made something larger than that at some earlier time, would he still call this little thing the Chief of his own creation?