# What Happened to the Dinosaurs?



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jun 3, 2016)

Have you ever thought about how the dinosaurs went extinct? What are the most sound reformed theories? Thank you very much!


----------



## Edward (Jun 3, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Have you ever thought about how the dinosaurs went extinct?



Ever seen how big some dinosaurs were? Not enough room on the ark.


----------



## Mikey (Jun 3, 2016)

Edward said:


> Ever seen how big some dinosaurs were? Not enough room on the ark.


Well, that depends; were they baby dinosaurs?


----------



## BGF (Jun 3, 2016)

I'd imagine life after the flood was harsh. Not every species may have made it through.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 4, 2016)

How can there be a "reformed" theory of dinosaurs? Is there a chapter in one of the Confessions that addresses this matter? We can speculate about "what happened," and end up agreeing with people of vastly different commitments regarding faith, science, history, physics, etc.; and for markedly different reasons, I might add. This is not heading toward anything particularly "Reformed."

If we aren't really raising a question that is properly tagged "Reformed" (we're not), then we're simply wondering what range of possible answers fit with a Reformed man's commitment to biblical authority and primacy. Frankly, plenty of respected men have been found all over the map on such things--when attempts are made (in various ages of theoretical speculation) to square raw natural data, scientific theory, and sound hermeneutics of a book which is about Redemptive history and only incidentally/secondarily about the stage on which the drama is presented.

I think my main interest here is urging appropriate caution about dogmatizing on sauropods, or contending so earnestly for one particular position (or against one) that it somehow gets intertwined with first-order gospel concerns. Being Reformed is about confessing Christ, and next to nothing about Dino.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 4, 2016)

I don't know if there is a "Reformed" view - some Reformed are Old Earth Creationists and some Young Earth Creationists - but some would say two of the dinosaurs are mentioned in Job. 

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 4, 2016)

What dinosaurs?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 4, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> How can there be a "reformed" theory of dinosaurs? Is there a chapter in one of the Confessions that addresses this matter? We can speculate about "what happened," and end up agreeing with people of vastly different commitments regarding faith, science, history, physics, etc.; and for markedly different reasons, I might add. This is not heading toward anything particularly "Reformed."
> 
> If we aren't really raising a question that is properly tagged "Reformed" (we're not), then we're simply wondering what range of possible answers fit with a Reformed man's commitment to biblical authority and primacy. Frankly, plenty of respected men have been found all over the map on such things--when attempts are made (in various ages of theoretical speculation) to square raw natural data, scientific theory, and sound hermeneutics of a book which is about Redemptive history and only incidentally/secondarily about the stage on which the drama is presented.
> 
> I think my main interest here is urging appropriate caution about dogmatizing on sauropods, or contending so earnestly for one particular position (or against one) that it somehow gets intertwined with first-order gospel concerns. Being Reformed is about confessing Christ, and next to nothing about Dino.



I would agree that considering the lack of clear biblical data, it is best not to get overly dogmatic about such an issue. That being said, I do think there are aspects of this topic that do relate to our understanding of creation and the fall, and thus would most certainly fall under the realm of gospel concerns, and therefore pertinent to the reformed view of Christianity and the world.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 4, 2016)

Dinosaurs died due to gay marriage and GMOs.

Naw, I think the Nephilim ate them. Then the rest drowned in the Flood. Then a few became the Dragon legends of yore.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 4, 2016)

The real reason!


----------



## Phil D. (Jun 4, 2016)

"What happened to the dinosaurs?" Well...they went the way of the dinosaurs...


----------



## Berean (Jun 4, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> The real reason!



Gary Larson is the best!


----------



## rookie (Jun 4, 2016)

I have a theory about where the dinosaurs went. First of all, we have to define what we mean by dinosaur. That would was only created/invented in 1842 by Richard Owen, to describe a fearfully great lizard. 

If we're talking about the big animals that have been extinct for centuries (or shortly after the flood), then we can seriously look at reptiles. Most of them don't stop growing their entire lives. Some grow slowly, some grow fast, but if you have a 900 yr old iguana, that my friend would be a huge "dinosaur". Or even a crocodile. I'm not sure I would want to meet one a few hundred feet long.

And then since the flood, the entire planet inhabitants lifespan was shortened to about 100 yrs. Therefore limiting the size of some of these animals.

Do I have facts, no, however, this does make sense.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jun 4, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> How can there be a "reformed" theory of dinosaurs? Is there a chapter in one of the Confessions that addresses this matter? We can speculate about "what happened," and end up agreeing with people of vastly different commitments regarding faith, science, history, physics, etc.; and for markedly different reasons, I might add. This is not heading toward anything particularly "Reformed."
> 
> If we aren't really raising a question that is properly tagged "Reformed" (we're not), then we're simply wondering what range of possible answers fit with a Reformed man's commitment to biblical authority and primacy. Frankly, plenty of respected men have been found all over the map on such things--when attempts are made (in various ages of theoretical speculation) to square raw natural data, scientific theory, and sound hermeneutics of a book which is about Redemptive history and only incidentally/secondarily about the stage on which the drama is presented.
> 
> I think my main interest here is urging appropriate caution about dogmatizing on sauropods, or contending so earnestly for one particular position (or against one) that it somehow gets intertwined with first-order gospel concerns. Being Reformed is about confessing Christ, and next to nothing about Dino.



I apologize if my wording is incorrect. I was just looking for a theory that seems to be sound and consistent with Reformed teaching. For example, I have non-reformed friends who will tell me Darwinian evolution is true, and that dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago by a giant meteor. I would be confused if a reformed Christian had these same views, that is why I was trying to see if the Reformed camp has some general consistencies with the teaching on this subject. I am just a Christian seeking and hoping to find. Thank you kindly.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jun 4, 2016)

On the ark, they even could have been eggs I suppose.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 5, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > How can there be a "reformed" theory of dinosaurs? Is there a chapter in one of the Confessions that addresses this matter? We can speculate about "what happened," and end up agreeing with people of vastly different commitments regarding faith, science, history, physics, etc.; and for markedly different reasons, I might add. This is not heading toward anything particularly "Reformed."
> ...


Some people will be suspicious of too much dogmatism in a theory about dinosaurs being made a test if orthodoxy by YECs, OECs or others, and that is a valid concern regarding laying burdens of belief on people that are based on our own fallible theories about the implications of Scripture. E.g. some YECs maintain that there was no rain before the Flood and no rainbows before the Flood.

As regards evolution the dinosaurs among themselves show very distinct types and features with no indication of being gradualistically related to each other. 

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jake (Jun 5, 2016)

Edward said:


> Ryan&Amber2013 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever thought about how the dinosaurs went extinct?
> ...



"Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every living thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, male and female, as God had commanded Noah." (Genesis 7:8-9)


----------



## Jake (Jun 5, 2016)

BGF said:


> I'd imagine life after the flood was harsh. Not every species may have made it through.



It seemed pretty flourishing to me, for however many "kinds" were upon the ark to proliferate to the large number of species on Earth today in such a short amount of time. I'm imagining a lot of the evolving happened fairly shortly after the flood, since we don't see as much rapid change happening continuously.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 5, 2016)

SolaScriptura said:


> What dinosaurs?


Some say that Leviathan and Behemoth in Job are descriptions of dinosaurs. 

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 5, 2016)

Grolar bears are an example of "evolution" before our eyes...quick adaptation.

http://archive.onearth.org/article/grolar-bears-and-narlugas-rise-of-the-arctic-hybrids



> "By melting the seasonal ice cap," Kelly says, "we’re speeding up evolution."



http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes_p2.html


> Scientists said evolution this rapid would be like humans developing another appendix over a few hundred years.



Scientists seem to call this "fast hybridiziation" a proof of evolution, even at the same time as asserting that the world could not be young because of all the slow time it takes for all these evolutionary changes to take place.


The present state of all the animals in the world (minus sea creatures) could have come from one big boat.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 5, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I apologize if my wording is incorrect. I was just looking for a theory that seems to be sound and consistent with Reformed teaching. For example, I have non-reformed friends who will tell me Darwinian evolution is true, and that dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago by a giant meteor. I would be confused if a reformed Christian had these same views, that is why I was trying to see if the Reformed camp has some general consistencies with the teaching on this subject. I am just a Christian seeking and hoping to find. Thank you kindly.


Please don't take my concern for a "conservationist" use of terms in a personally offensive way. It wasn't meant as such.

You may find a generally reformed guy who believes in evolution--Darwinian or some other version. I think its mistaken, but I don't know all it took to convince him, or where his own (presumed) informational "gap" could be. I could offer him a reason to change his mind that is less-robust than that which currently supports his view.

A helpful question is whether he is willing to concede that reasonable people "in our modern age" can hold an perfectly sound, hermeneutically and naturally compatible position that _rejects_ evolution. While I've found creationists (of Old or Young varieties) who are "my way or the highway" types, writing off people outside their camp as heretics; I've also run into plenty of intolleristas from the snotty-scientific community, who brand anyone who wasn't on board the EvolutionExpress a hundred years ago as "flat-earth rubes from Dorkville."

Not enough humility all the way around.

Attempts to shoe-horn an evolutionary scheme into Gen.1&2, or to overwrite the biblical narrative Gen.1-11 with geological age-chronology, are not (in my judgment) conformable to general Reformed rules of exegesis. Certain other interpretations I dissent from are more respectable, but still demand significant "special pleading" on certain points, as I see them.

Once again, I want evidence that (relatively) consistent biblical interpretation and primacy (there is no body of data as CLEAR as the Bible!) sets a man on the path of knowledge; over against the subjection of one's interpretation of Scripture to unassailable certainties established by autonomous reason interpreting natural phenomena.

It doesn't do a creation-favoring person any good if he does something similar to that which he objects when coming from the other side. But what is really needful is that Reformed people remain aware of the salvific essence of our faith. An evolutionist can stand forgiven before God for decades in this life, and get any false ideas he might have improved in glory. But no creationist, proud of his ideas, whose creationism is a form of works-righteousness, will go anywhere besides hell.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jun 5, 2016)

SolaScriptura said:


> What dinosaurs?



Do you mind expounding on the thought behind your question?


----------



## johnny (Jun 6, 2016)

rookie said:


> I have a theory about where the dinosaurs went. First of all, we have to define what we mean by dinosaur. That would was only created/invented in 1842 by Richard Owen, to describe a fearfully great lizard.
> 
> If we're talking about the big animals that have been extinct for centuries (or shortly after the flood), then we can seriously look at reptiles. Most of them don't stop growing their entire lives. Some grow slowly, some grow fast, but if you have a 900 yr old iguana, that my friend would be a huge "dinosaur". Or even a crocodile. I'm not sure I would want to meet one a few hundred feet long.
> 
> ...



I believe your theory is spot on 

Also, some dinosaurs survived and grew large enough to be considered dragons.
There is abundant evidence for this in old statues, murals and folklore.
Such a slow moving creature was no match for a bunch of pitchfork villages.

http://creation.com/dinosaurs-and-dragons-stamping-on-the-legends


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jun 6, 2016)

IrishPresby99 said:


> As an who hold to the old earth framework view of genesis, i believe a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 65 million years ago.



That is a very interesting view.


----------



## Douglas P. (Jun 6, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> IrishPresby99 said:
> 
> 
> > As an who hold to the old earth framework view of genesis, i believe a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 65 million years ago.
> ...



This has been the predominant theory since the 1980s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event


----------



## johnny (Jun 6, 2016)

Douglas Padgett said:


> Ryan&Amber2013 said:
> 
> 
> > IrishPresby99 said:
> ...



I do not ascribe to this view


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 6, 2016)

IrishPresby99 said:


> As an who hold to the old earth framework view of genesis, i believe a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 65 million years ago.



How did it not wipe out the humans? After all, Genesis 1 teaches that they were created on the same day as all land animals.


----------



## rookie (Jun 6, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> IrishPresby99 said:
> 
> 
> > As an who hold to the old earth framework view of genesis, i believe a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 65 million years ago.
> ...



This


----------



## MW (Jun 6, 2016)

IrishPresby99 said:


> As an who hold to the old earth framework view of genesis, i believe a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 65 million years ago.



As one who holds to the doctrine of creation I don't believe what you have set forward can be genuinely credited as a "belief."


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 6, 2016)

Contra_Mundum said:


> How can there be a "reformed" theory of dinosaurs? Is there a chapter in one of the Confessions that addresses this matter?



[note: This is not particularly addressed to Rev. Buchanan, but is intended to add to the discussion as a whole]

While there isn't a chapter in the confessions on dinosaurs, the Westminster Confession has one on creation, and it states in no uncertain terms:


> It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, *to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein* whether visible or invisible, *in the space of six days*; and all very good.



So, while there may not be a Reformed doctrine of dinosaurs, the Reformed doctrine of creation requires the understanding that whatever dinosaurs there may be or have been were created some during that six day period in which God accomplished his work of creation.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jun 6, 2016)

johnny said:


> rookie said:
> 
> 
> > I have a theory about where the dinosaurs went. First of all, we have to define what we mean by dinosaur. That would was only created/invented in 1842 by Richard Owen, to describe a fearfully great lizard.
> ...



Though I like the sound of this, and I wish I could easily embrace it, I have one question: what do we do with the fossils of entirely different species that are discovered? For example, the T-rex, the raptor, or the stegosaurus? These seem to be very distinct species from any reptile that exists today. Please help me to work this out. Thank you.


----------



## johnny (Jun 7, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> johnny said:
> 
> 
> > rookie said:
> ...



The very fact that we have "whole" fossils that are undegraded by other animals or insects, points to the biblical record of a world wide flood, whereby dinosaurs and other creatures were literally washed into sediment where they were preserved in entirety. 
(There are even some caught in the act of giving birth)
After the flood, dinosaurs were limited in their growth and after death, would not have been preserved as well.

There is a plethera of information out there and I am no certainly no expert, Creation Ministries does a great job answering all these kinds of questions, (although I am also Geocentric and CMI don't like that)


----------



## earl40 (Jun 7, 2016)

MW said:


> IrishPresby99 said:
> 
> 
> > As an who hold to the old earth framework view of genesis, i believe a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 65 million years ago.
> ...



Could one have a "belief" that many species of fossils of huge and diverse creatures, dinosaurs, that are dug up are simply not here anymore? Of course I assume you would agree with such, correct me if I am wrong. I have no dogmatic belief of how they became extinct.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jun 7, 2016)

johnny said:


> Ryan&Amber2013 said:
> 
> 
> > johnny said:
> ...



So you are saying that the Lord might have chose to save one "kind" of dinosaur, and allowed the rest of the species to perish? And with this one kind being left, this might have been the species that some cultures call the dragon? So You would group the T-rex, raptor, etc., into one kind? This would explain why only one of the species survived. Thanks.


----------



## MW (Jun 7, 2016)

earl40 said:


> Could one have a "belief" that many species of fossils of huge and diverse creatures, dinosaurs, that are dug up are simply not here anymore?



Whatever it is, it is not a "belief." A belief arises from demonstration and conviction. Creation is a belief founded on the authority of divine revelation. It is something known and believed to have happened. To put a speculative science on the same level as Christian belief is to make a religion of science.


----------



## johnny (Jun 7, 2016)

Quote form Johnny
The very fact that we have "whole" fossils that are undegraded by other animals or insects, points to the biblical record of a world wide flood, whereby dinosaurs and other creatures were literally washed into sediment where they were preserved in entirety. 
(There are even some caught in the act of giving birth)
After the flood, dinosaurs were limited in their growth and after death, would not have been preserved as well.

There is a plethera of information out there and I am no certainly no expert, Creation Ministries does a great job answering all these kinds of questions, (although I am also Geocentric and CMI don't like that)

Quote from Ryan and Amber
So you are saying that the Lord might have chose to save one "kind" of dinosaur, and allowed the rest of the species to perish? And with this one kind being left, this might have been the species that some cultures call the dragon? So You would group the T-rex, raptor, etc., into one kind? This would explain why only one of the species survived. Thanks.


Johnny again

Kind of, and thank you for kind reply 

I am suggesting that there may be remains of T-Rex and Raptor in smaller versions after the flood event but that they most likely won't have survived in the same way as the pre flood corpses, as the flood was a unique event which mummified many fossil specimens in sediment. For instance, try and find a whole preserved tiger corpse from last century, unless the unlucky tiger happened to wander into a boggy quagmire and get stuck and die "which is a unique event" He would probably have been consumed by buzzards and insects and only a few odd bones of the tiger have survived. This also applies to all the fossilised fish (how did they all get there so perfectly preserved whole?) When a fish dies it generally gets consumed by all the other fish in the general area, same with insects ect ect,,,


----------



## earl40 (Jun 7, 2016)

MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Could one have a "belief" that many species of fossils of huge and diverse creatures, dinosaurs, that are dug up are simply not here anymore?
> ...



Is it speculative science that the big bony fossils buried in the earth are not fossilized bones of creatures we do not see today?


----------



## MW (Jun 7, 2016)

earl40 said:


> Is it speculative science that the big bony fossils buried in the earth are not fossilized bones of creatures we do not see today?



Yes. You have to speculate something in general as to what they are in order to conclude what they are not. Just the term "fossil" requires particular assumptions.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jun 7, 2016)

johnny said:


> I am suggesting that there may be remains of T-Rex and Raptor in smaller versions after the flood event but that they most likely won't have survived in the same way as the pre flood corpses, as the flood was a unique event which mummified many fossil specimens in sediment. For instance, try and find a whole preserved tiger corpse from last century, unless the unlucky tiger happened to wander into a boggy quagmire and get stuck and die "which is a unique event" He would probably have been consumed by buzzards and insects and only a few odd bones of the tiger have survived. This also applies to all the fossilised fish (how did they all get there so perfectly preserved whole?) When a fish dies it generally gets consumed by all the other fish in the general area, same with insects ect ect,,,



That is very helpful, thank you. One last question, so what do you think happened to any remaining dinosaurs after the event of the flood? Is that too much to speculate? Maybe they were killed off? Maybe they couldn't find food? Either way, the point is that they went extinct for some reason, correct? Thank you.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 7, 2016)

MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Is it speculative science that the big bony fossils buried in the earth are not fossilized bones of creatures we do not see today?
> ...



I see your point though the "stuff" buried in the ground is "revealed" to me as being from some big animal that is not around today.


----------



## MW (Jun 7, 2016)

earl40 said:


> I see your point though the "stuff" buried in the ground is "revealed" to me as being from some big animal that is not around today.



I would question where the "revelation" is coming from.

The hyper-natural science which gives us dinosaurs also supposes the same causes which produced life on our planet could have done so on other planets. If that is the case, these things could have been the result of aliens burning up on entering our atmosphere. Or, if one chooses the ruin-reconstruction theory it is possible they are the remains of the ruined creation before God began to create our existing order of things. Or, if one believes in cosmic warfare between angels and demons one might conceive it possible that these are forms once assumed by spiritual beings. Or, if one chooses creation-science it is possible that they are the remains of some kind of animal which continues to be represented in the animal kingdom of today. Or, if one believes Gen. 6 refers to angelic-human intercourse they could be a monstrous fruit of that union. The speculation is only as valid as the system which generates it; and it is the system which will determine whether "fossil" is plausible or not.


----------



## johnny (Jun 8, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> johnny said:
> 
> 
> > I am suggesting that there may be remains of T-Rex and Raptor in smaller versions after the flood event but that they most likely won't have survived in the same way as the pre flood corpses, as the flood was a unique event which mummified many fossil specimens in sediment. For instance, try and find a whole preserved tiger corpse from last century, unless the unlucky tiger happened to wander into a boggy quagmire and get stuck and die "which is a unique event" He would probably have been consumed by buzzards and insects and only a few odd bones of the tiger have survived. This also applies to all the fossilised fish (how did they all get there so perfectly preserved whole?) When a fish dies it generally gets consumed by all the other fish in the general area, same with insects ect ect,,,
> ...



We are told in Genesis that only those creatures that God brought into the ark survived. 

Genesis 7:4-5

Genesis 7:21-23
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 

We are also told that God brought every living creature into the ark that breathed the breath of life, so I imagine that this must have included dinosaurs. I read somewhere that the ark was certainly big enough to accommodate dinosaurs.

Genesis 7:15-16
And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

So what happened to them??? I think they slowly died off and became extinct. They probably never grew to the gigantic sizes that they were during the Antediluvian period. 

If I may refer to Reverend Winzer's post above, I am working (albeit poorly) from a Creation Science Hypothesis because I see it as being the most accurate position according to the scriptural record.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 8, 2016)

MW said:


> I would question where the "revelation" is coming from.
> 
> The hyper-natural science which gives us dinosaurs also supposes the same causes which produced life on our planet could have done so on other planets. If that is the case, these things could have been the result of aliens burning up on entering our atmosphere.



I reject such.




MW said:


> Or, if one chooses the ruin-reconstruction theory it is possible they are the remains of the ruined creation before God began to create our existing order of things.


I reject such.


MW said:


> Or, if one believes in cosmic warfare between angels and demons one might conceive it possible that these are forms once assumed by spiritual beings.


I reject such.



MW said:


> Or, if one believes Gen. 6 refers to angelic-human intercourse they could be a monstrous fruit of that union. The speculation is only as valid as the system which generates it; and it is the system which will determine whether "fossil" is plausible or not.


I reject such.



MW said:


> Or, if one chooses creation-science it is possible that they are the remains of some kind of animal which continues to be represented in the animal kingdom of today..


I reject such, to an extent, in that I believe the "things" we see buried are species that are now extinct. The "natural revelation" from Our Lord has been seen with my own eyes.


----------



## Douglas P. (Jun 8, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> IrishPresby99 said:
> 
> 
> > As an who hold to the old earth framework view of genesis, i believe a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs roughly 65 million years ago.
> ...



The framework view does not interpret the creation narrative literally. Therefore, (speaking for myself only here) I'm free to conclude, based on reason, modern scientific evidence etc., that humans wouldn't show up on the scene for another 65 million years, thus barely dodging the meteor.


----------



## johnny (Jun 8, 2016)

It's interesting to me that some Christians still hold to a "millions of years" hypothesis when there is so much good information out there refuting it, However, we are all united in Christ and these issues are not salvific in themselves.

Sigh


----------



## MW (Jun 8, 2016)

earl40 said:


> I reject such, to an extent, in that I believe the "things" we see buried are species that are now extinct. The "natural revelation" from Our Lord has been seen with my own eyes.



I don't think you have seen this as a natural revelation from the Lord with your own eyes. You may have seen something which has been interpreted as this, and you have accepted it as the best explanation of what you have seen; but that is all. People who say they "believe" in ghosts work along the same lines. It is not a "belief" because nothing has been experienced which warrants belief. At most it is part of an unknown facet of the world on which one chooses to exercise his mental faculties to try to arrive at a plausible explanation. For a Christian to call it "belief" is to raise it to a level of credibility which will ultimately weaken the credibility of his genuine beliefs founded on actual revelation.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 9, 2016)

MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > I reject such, to an extent, in that I believe the "things" we see buried are species that are now extinct. The "natural revelation" from Our Lord has been seen with my own eyes.
> ...



Believe it or not I see your point and what I said about what I did see as being some type of animal remains, or stuff, that are not around today In my most humble opinion is a belief that would only be changed if we find a huge mammoth sloth. Yes there are other species of sloths today BUT the subspecies of the ones buried today are In my humble opinion extinct. Also comparing ghosts with the remains of animals is off in that we have both seen the remains of animals unlike the what some people suppose they saw were ghosts.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 9, 2016)

Who says the dinosaurs disappeared? Have you seen photos of Bernie Sanders lately?


----------



## MW (Jun 9, 2016)

earl40 said:


> Also comparing ghosts with the remains of animals is off in that we have both seen the remains of animals unlike the what some people suppose they saw were ghosts.



Earl, for the sake of clarity, this "thing" which is fossilised, does it live today or not? You are saying it is extinct, and that what you have seen are the fossilised remains of something which once lived but died out. If so, by definition it is not present today, which means you have not seen it; some process of argument from probabilities is bringing you to your conclusion.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 9, 2016)

Douglas Padgett said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > IrishPresby99 said:
> ...



The Reformed view embodied in the Westminster Standards _does_ see the days of creation as days, however. Since this is a confessional Reformed board, I am going to take that view for granted as the standard one.

On a personal note, I would look diligently into this matter if I were you. Don't buy what the science teachers are selling without making a diligent study. The framework hypothesis promises an easy way out of Biblical liberalism, but it can't be proven, and it doesn't comport with the narrative of Genesis 2 and forward, which is organically rooted in Genesis 1.


----------



## timfost (Jun 9, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> Douglas Padgett said:
> 
> 
> > TylerRay said:
> ...



Thank you, Tyler. I would add that if the dinosaurs were wiped out prior to the creation of man, there was also death and suffering before the curse. As the FH unfolds, its allegorical interpretation seems to logically extend through Gen. 3, or even farther. 

This brief article does a nice job countering the problems with the FH.

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/whats-wrong-with-the-framework-hypothesis/

Blessings,


----------



## Edward (Jun 9, 2016)

earl40 said:


> Yes there are other species of sloths today BUT the subspecies of the ones buried today are In my humble opinion extinct.









Three fossilized bones in that one; the rest are fiberglass casts.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 10, 2016)

MW said:


> Earl, for the sake of clarity, this "thing" which is fossilised, does it live today or not?



Of course the thing buried is not alive  and the products of particular species or subspecies in discussion here which came about by procreation are simply extinct. 



MW said:


> You are saying it is extinct, and that what you have seen are the fossilised remains of something which once lived but died out. If so, by definition it is not present today, which means you have not seen it; some process of argument from probabilities is bringing you to your conclusion.



I would say I am not speaking of how they got there, but simply that they are there, and the "probability" of seeing a triceratops alive today is 0%. Also I believe that many times we can discern the difference in what was at one time alive by the bones or fossils we see of plants and animas see buried in the ground, and things that were never alive such as rocks.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 10, 2016)

Edward said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes there are other species of sloths today BUT the subspecies of the ones buried today are In my humble opinion extinct.
> ...



Indeed this is so but there are some huge fossils that have been found which are tad more complete.


----------



## Douglas P. (Jun 10, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> The Reformed view embodied in the Westminster Standards does see the days of creation as days, however. Since this is a confessional Reformed board, I am going to take that view for granted as the standard one.
> 
> On a personal note, I would look diligently into this matter if I were you. Don't buy what the science teachers are selling without making a diligent study. The framework hypothesis promises an easy way out of Biblical liberalism, but it can't be proven, and it doesn't comport with the narrative of Genesis 2 and forward, which is organically rooted in Genesis 1.



I have no problem granting that most, if not all, of the Reformers held to a literal 6-day view and that it was embodied in the standards. However, many of them held to views regarding the creation account that would certainly or likely be rejected today. For example, Martin Luther on nature of the Cosmos:



> "Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters… It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night… We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."
> 
> [ Luther’s Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43 ]



Granted, these views (flat earth, firmament dome, waters above the dome, etc) are not explicitly stated in the Standards, however, if you wish to insist on a literal view of creation then I would push back and ask how literal are you willing to go. Are you willing to be as literal as Luther insists you should be? 

Luther's arguments sounds very much like an argument I'd find on AiG, but instead of arguing for a literal 6 days he is arguing for a literal dome with the moon, sun, and stars "fastened" to the dome. So why isn't AiG arguing for a literal view as literal as Luther's? 

Certainly Moses and the Hebrews (as well as the entire ancient world) would have believed that the earth was flat with pillars holding up the firmament and a body of water above that firmament (which the sun, moon, and stars were all underneath). So why am I (according to AiG) just a breadth away from being a bible-denying danger to the Gospel if I simply add one more thing to Genesis 1 that I don't think God ever intended for us to take literally in a modern scientific way of understanding?

For what it's worth, I have studied this topic diligently. I have probably spent more time on the creation narrative then any other topic in my personal biblical studies. When I was in high-school I was an atheist brought to the Lord by a speech given at my school by a YEC (He runs this site: www.rae.org). For years I read everything on AiG and other creation-science based sites. I was as ardent defender of YEC as anyone else. Along the way I was introduced to MGK (mainly for his work on covenant theology) and ran across his work on Genesis and it really challenged the way I looked at Genesis. It forced me to reassess how I was reading, or through what lens I was reading Genesis from.

At the end of the day I don't think an honest sincere reading of scripture from a inerrantist view requires that I believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that is was created in 6 literal days, that there is a dome holding up water above the heavens, or that dinosaurs lived side by side with humans and were wiped out during the flood.


----------



## johnny (Jun 10, 2016)

I rated your post Douglas because I can see that you are an honest and intelligent man, speaking from the heart. I also note you posted your view with some trepidation, understanding it would not conform with the majority view on PB. 

Do you believe that there was once a dome of waters that rested above the earth or are you denying this?

I do believe there was a firmament and this article explains it very well (including dinosaurs)

http://biblicaldiscipleship.org/content/7-earth’s-pre-flood-water-canopy-and-dinosaur-mystery


----------



## timfost (Jun 10, 2016)

Douglas Padgett said:


> At the end of the day I don't think an honest sincere reading of scripture from a inerrantist view requires that I believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that is was created in 6 literal days, that there is a dome holding up water above the heavens, or that dinosaurs lived side by side with humans and were wiped out during the flood.



Due to the nature of the genealogies, I think AiG is a bit off, too. When the genealogies are compared (Luke and OT), there are gaps. It is very possible that there are gaps in the OT genealogies as well (see the Hebrew uusage of the word "son"), therefore allowing the earth to be a little older than the 6,000 odd years (possibly 12,000?). However, this still would rule out millions or billions unless we allow for death and suffering prior to the curse. This runs into major issues with the fall, our first parents and federal headship.


----------



## Douglas P. (Jun 11, 2016)

johnny said:


> I rated your post Douglas because I can see that you are an honest and intelligent man, speaking from the heart. I also note you posted your view with some trepidation, understanding it would not conform with the majority view on PB.


 Thanks for your kind words =)




johnny said:


> Do you believe that there was once a dome of waters that rested above the earth or are you denying this?



Just to be clear, I think that Genesis 1 sees the dome (firmament) and the waters above as two separate things. The firmament dome is described elsewhere in scripture as solid in nature and holding up the waters, which is why Luther can argue that the moon, sun, and stars are fastened to the dome.

Here is an image of what I believe is being described in Genesis 1 and elsewhere as the nature of the cosmos.






For comparison, here is an image from the cover of Luther's bible, as he saw the cosmos.









johnny said:


> I do believe there was a firmament and this article explains it very well (including dinosaurs)
> 
> http://biblicaldiscipleship.org/cont...nosaur-mystery



As for the article, I have two objections.

The first, and most important objection, is that the bible still sees the waters above the firmament, and the firmament dome as being existent today, thousands of years after the flood. 

[3] Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars!
[4] Praise him, you highest heavens,
and you waters above the heavens!

(Psalm 148:3-4 ESV)

Second, whatever the nature of the firmament and whatever the nature of the waters, Genesis 1 sees the Sun, Moon, and stars as being underneath/on/in the dome. Which, in my opinion, makes maintaining a modern scientific understanding of the cosmos and holding to a strict literal reading of the biblical creation narrative impossible. That would be a lot of matter shoved in a very small space (relatively speaking).

Going back to my original argument, I don't think anyone (or likely anyone) wants to take the biblical view of the cosmos as entirely literal as it would have been understood by the original audience, from a modern scientific understanding. I think there are some major problems if we do this. God's words were accommodated to their "scientific" worldview at the time, not ours, and I'm fine with that. Which is why I'm perfectly content with accepting the predominate view that the Dinosaurs died off 65-66 million years ago.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 11, 2016)

Vern Poythress has a paper at his website which refutes the notion that the Bible is talking about a solid dome and water canopy, or that God was accomodating a primitive cosmology in these respects.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Douglas P. (Jun 13, 2016)

For those of you still following along at home, here are links to the articles that I think Peairtach was referencing:

http://49ft7fdv9kp7kqhm12yk1d17.wpe...s/2015/12/2015Poythress-RainWater-WTJ77.2.pdf

http://49ft7fdv9kp7kqhm12yk1d17.wpe...s/2015/12/2015Poythress-RainWater-WTJ77.2.pdf

And here is an article from Paul Seely, that I personally find more persuasive:

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...s/text/articles-books/seely-firmament-wtj.pdf

In it, Seely argues that:



> "The basic historical fact that defines the meaning of raqiac (firmament) in Genesis 1 is simply this: all peoples in the ancient world thought of the sky as solid."



Long story short, based on all the historical information we have with regards to an ancient understanding of the cosmos, I find it hard to believe that the Israelites would have read Genesis 1 and had anything but a concept of the world like the images above. 

And even if it is granted, that the firmament is not to be taken as solid dome but some sort of atmospheric expanse, and we are to understand the waters above in a different way, as some sort of atmospheric top, you still have the problem of the stars being placed in the same plane as the sun and moon _in_ our atmosphere.

At any rate, I still think taking Genesis 1 in a strict literal way is very difficult if you want to hold to any modern view of the cosmos. Which is why I think an accommodated reading of Genesis 1 is likely the best way to read it.


----------



## Toasty (Jun 13, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Have you ever thought about how the dinosaurs went extinct? What are the most sound reformed theories? Thank you very much!



I'm not sure how they became extinct.


----------



## johnny (Jun 13, 2016)

Douglas Padgett said:


> For those of you still following along at home, here are links to the articles that I think Peairtach was referencing:
> 
> http://49ft7fdv9kp7kqhm12yk1d17.wpe...s/2015/12/2015Poythress-RainWater-WTJ77.2.pdf
> 
> ...



Thank you for your links and the material. I am still working my way through the Seely paper.

One other question Douglas, 
Do you believe the flood spoken of in Genesis was a regional phenomena, or do you see it as a world wide event?


----------



## Alex the Less (Jun 13, 2016)

Are the dinosaurs really extinct? Sure the big ones and some highly specialized ones but the adaptable ones are still with us (crocodiles).

You may think me young earth but I am Old Earth Creation. Like Douglas Padgett, Kline's ideas were insightful with his explication of the Framework Hypothesis idea. Some of Kline's ideas have probably been superseded or matured beyond his recognition though.

Wasn't it Umberto Cassuto, the 20th century Rabbi who pointed out that Gen. 1.1-2.3 was composed with perfect symmetry?


----------



## Douglas P. (Jun 13, 2016)

johnny said:


> One other question Douglas,
> Do you believe the flood spoken of in Genesis was a regional phenomena, or do you see it as a world wide event?



Probably regional. I haven't studied it from a textual perspective all that much, but from what I can tell there is 0 evidence of a global flood from a geological perspective. This makes me believe that the Scriptures aren't insisting on a global worldwide (as we would understand that today) flood.


----------



## MW (Jun 13, 2016)

Douglas Padgett said:


> In it, Seely argues that:
> 
> 
> 
> > "The basic historical fact that defines the meaning of raqiac (firmament) in Genesis 1 is simply this: all peoples in the ancient world thought of the sky as solid."



They also thought there was more than one god, that things were made by the gods warring with each other, and many other foolish notions which the special revelation of holy Scripture counteracts as it teaches us to worship the one true living and only wise God.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jun 13, 2016)

Here's an interesting article by Dr. John Byl : https://bylogos.blogspot.com/2010/02/genesis-and-ancient-cosmology.html

I have very much appreciated the help from Dr. Byl on understanding how science theories work (and don't work). I have also greatly appreciated the philosophical help from Rev. Winzer and others on the board. Trying to come up with scientific (sounding) answers to science's claims that it has disproved (or at least undermined) what God has revealed, is a no-win endeavor.


----------



## Alex the Less (Jun 14, 2016)

*Hi Jeri*



Jeri Tanner said:


> Here's an interesting article by Dr. John Byl : https://bylogos.blogspot.com/2010/02/genesis-and-ancient-cosmology.html
> 
> I have very much appreciated the help from Dr. Byl on understanding how science theories work (and don't work). I have also greatly appreciated the philosophical help from Rev. Winzer and others on the board. Trying to come up with scientific (sounding) answers to science's claims that it has disproved (or at least undermined) what God has revealed, is a no-win endeavor.



Some of us see a problem with folks thinking the bible says a certain thing (what God has revealed) and other informed sources describing events and seeing biblical warrant for those events. Some folks, including myself, see a trap (possibly of the tempter's making) to commit to a fallacious idea, only later to have the rug pulled out from under themselves when further facts are disclosed and destroy the straw man.

I hold out that maybe, somehow, the earth is young, but generally do not see the conflict of an old earth with the biblical record. Please, someone address (substantially) why Gen. 1.1-2.3 is in perfect symmetry in Hebrew. Please discuss structural markers and deal with other poetic sections (no pat answers). 

It appears to me that is what has happened in Christian studies among many adherents: a superficiality of pat answers without careful study.


----------



## MW (Jun 14, 2016)

Alex the Less said:


> Please, someone address (substantially) why Gen. 1.1-2.3 is in perfect symmetry in Hebrew. Please discuss structural markers and deal with other poetic sections (no pat answers).



It is a basic dictate of wisdom to build a house before one fills it, Prov. 24:3-4. That the first three days speak of "forming" and the second three days speak of "filling" is precisely the order one would expect where literal acts of creation are involved. That verse 2 prefaces the work of creation with the fact the world was formless and void would also be expected where the purpose of the narrative is to show how something was formed and filled. The symmetry and literary art of the narrative should magnify the importance of the events which are described, not minimise their historicity.

In order to approach the text aright, it will be important to see how the rest of the biblical witness approaches it. The fourth commandment takes the whole of it as an historical and literal event, Exod. 20. The apostle Paul understood the work of the first day to be an historical and literal event, 2 Cor. 4. The apostle Peter understood the work of the second day to be an historical and literal event, 2 Peter 3. The Lord Jesus understood the creation of male and female on the sixth day to be an historical and literal event, Matt. 19. Our Lord Jesus also understood the institution of the Sabbath to be an historical and literal event, including the order in which Gen. 1-2 describes the events as having happened, Mark 2. If the biblical witness as a whole is important to us, it will not be possible to ignore the way the text has been understood, as well as doctrinally and morally applied, on the basis that the things related were actual events which happened in time and space according to the literal meaning of the words.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 15, 2016)

MW said:


> Alex the Less said:
> 
> 
> > Please, someone address (substantially) why Gen. 1.1-2.3 is in perfect symmetry in Hebrew. Please discuss structural markers and deal with other poetic sections (no pat answers).
> ...



 Thank you Rev. Winzer for your excellent words. Regardless of what one believes about the creation of the world, it is abundantly clear that the biblical authors intended to communicate a literal six day creation in which the Lord created the universe out of nothing by the power of his breath, and any other understanding must be arrived at outside of the biblical testimony. It seems to me that those who seek to reconcile the Bible with science are doomed to failure, for no matter how many creation accounts and flood stories and towers of Babel that are explained away, eventually we all run into a brick wall called the resurrection. And no amount of hermeneutical gymnastics will ever be able to reconcile such an event with science and yet still leave any sort of faith standing.


----------



## Alex the Less (Jun 15, 2016)

*Hi Baptist Bill*



Bill The Baptist said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > Alex the Less said:
> ...



Natural revelation is not "science" All truth is God's truth. Admittedly, this is not my forte or burning interest (origins study) but I know of many Christians who validate both working science and a belief in God the Creator.

My question would be: have we adequately tried to reconcile both these streams of revelation? It seems like, Bill, you believe Christians should not try to attempt a reconciliation between natural and specific disclosure.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 16, 2016)

Alex the Less said:


> My question would be: have we adequately tried to reconcile both these streams of revelation? It seems like, Bill, you believe Christians should not try to attempt a reconciliation between natural and specific disclosure.



What I believe is that there is a vast difference between observational science and speculative science. Any science that pretends to speak to matters of origin or age of the Earth is by necessity speculative in nature. As Christians, I believe that we should place much greater confidence in the revelation of God than in the speculations of finite man. My point was simply that it is ultimately a fools errand to attempt to reconcile science and faith because science will always reject the supernatural, and without the supernatural our faith has no power.


----------

