# Dinosaurs, ice age, etc.



## blhowes

My youngest son asked me about some of the things he's been learning at school (public). I didn't know the answers to his questions, having never given them much thought. I thought I'd start my search for answers to his questions by seeing if anybody on the board has researched them.

He was wondering about dinosaurs and the ice age. A couple of the questions he asked are:

1. Were there dinosaurs?
2. Did dinosaurs live at the same time as men?
3. Was there a global ice age?

Those are some good questions, and I'll add one or two of my own. 

When I was my son's age or thereabouts, we went on a field trip to the museum of natural history in NY. Looking at the bones of the large dinosaurs was fascinating. Thinking about them, I wonder:

4. Did dinosaurs of that size live all over the world, or was it restricted to a particular area?
5. Is there any hint in the scriptures that any of the writers saw these large dinosaurs or had even heard of them?
6. What caused the dinosaurs to become extinct?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Edited on 2-4-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## BobVigneault

Read the description of the behemoth in the book of Job. I just don't see a hippo in that description. 

Reptiles get bigger the longer they live. Most dinosaurs were the size of a dog or horse. Some however got to be very big.

They went extinct because they were frolicking with the unicorns when they should have been getting on the ark.

"Oh there's green allegators and long necked geese, humpy back camels and chimpanzees....." Nevermind


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 1. Were there dinosaurs?


Yes. Where do you think the bones came from? :bigsmile:


> 2. Did dinosaurs live at the same time as men?


Yes. They were created in the garden with all the other creatures and coexosted just fine. Some secular researchers are even starting to concede this now, that mammals and dinosaurs coexisted. 


> 3. Was there a global ice age?


Most likely there was after the Flood. It was probably an after-effect from the Flood, and the earth had to adjust to that new environment. It also had to have a quick onset in order to catch all those animals by surprise which we find frozen in ice every now and then (i.e. like the mammoth they found a few years ago). Most likely the region around the equator was not frozen over though. It remained warm enough for man to flourish and grow (i.e. notice mesopotamia, egypt, babyl, etc.).


> 4. Did dinosaurs of that size live all over the world, or was it restricted to a particular area?


They have found fossils all over the world. But what the world looked like before the Flood, who knows. 


> 5. Is there any hint in the scriptures that any of the writers saw these large dinosaurs or had even heard of them?


Job 38-40. Behemoth and Leviathan.


> 6. What caused the dinosaurs to become extinct?


They couldn't adjust to the new environment. Plus when they get big, people most likely hunted them down. That's probably where alot of those "dragon" myths developed from in other cultures. 

Go to the Answers in Genesis website. It's got alot of these related questions with more detailed scientific and archeologic analysis.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> Read the description of the behemoth in the book of Job. I just don't see a hippo in that description.


So there were dinosaurs after the flood?



> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> Reptiles get bigger the longer they live. Most dinosaurs were the size of a dog or horse. Some however got to be very big.
> 
> They went extinct because they were frolicking with the unicorns when they should have been getting on the ark.


If there were dinosaurs living during the time of Noah, would they necessarily have been brought into the ark? 

Let's assume (for the time being) that what scientists say (example below) is true about the weight of the dinosaurs. Barring supernatural intervention, how many dinosaurs could the ark have accommodated? Given the design of ark, does anybody know if anybody has calculated how much weight the ark could take in and still remain boyant?

Here's some estimates of scientists that I found at a random site about dinosaurs: (http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/dinos/size.htm) 

Q: Which dinosaur is the largest?
A: The biggest dinosaur is probably ultrasauros. We only have a few bones of this late Jurassic (140 million years ago) plant-eater from Colorado but they show an animal that was six stories high and may have weighed more than 50 tons. 

Q: How much did the T. rex weigh?
A: T. rex weighed at least seven tons by most estimates.

To be fair, the site also says "_Scientists don't know how much dinosaurs weighed! They don't like to make those estimates, because they don't have enough information, but everyone wants them to guess. You can only guess based on how much modern land animals weigh for their size and scaling up for dinosaurs. The width of the skeleton and the heaviness of the bones helps to estimate weight, as does the size of the dents in the bones where the muscles insert into it. That tells you a bit about how big the muscles were and how much they weighed. But until we can get a live dinosaur up on a truck stop weighing scale we'll never know for sure! _

[Edited on 2-4-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Go to the Answers in Genesis website. It's got alot of these related questions with more detailed scientific and archeologic analysis.


Patrick,
Thanks for your responses, and especially for pointing me to the Answers in Genesis website. I poked around enough to find out they believe the earth is several thousand years old. I look forward to reading more.


----------



## gwine

I have read that some dinosaurs may not have been reptiles. The bone structure of some of the carnivores suggests bird-like form.

I am curious about the 1 lung - 2 lung comment, though. From just looking at bones I wonder how one could even know much about the internal organs, much less the external colors, scales vs. feathers, and the like.


----------



## kceaster

Especially when some species are constructed from a few bones.

How in the world would you figure out what a dinosaur looked like with just 3 bones?

Also, it is well documented that some of the skeletons we have are fabrications.

I personally like the passage in Isaiah 30 about the fiery flying serpent.

KC


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Alot of it is speculation. But they have found complete skeletons. That does give you a general idea of what they could have looked like. You can tell where muscles attached and how they functioned. You can tell which bones could bear more weight, stuff like that. But certainly nothing like the stuff we see on TV. We can't know what color they were, or if they had hair. I question whether or not they could tell if they were warm blooded or not, but I'm not a biologist so maybe there is a way to tell more. I think it will get funner as we begin to understand DNA traits.


----------



## govols

Were there dinosaurs on the ark?

I would say yes. Well, if they were so big then how did they get on the ark? No one said that the adults were on the ark. I would have taken the younger ones that were smaller.

Just my


----------



## Joseph Ringling

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> 
> They went extinct because they were frolicking with the unicorns when they should have been getting on the ark.
> 
> "Oh there's green allegators and long necked geese, humpy back camels and chimpanzees....." Nevermind


----------



## andreas

***Were there dinosaurs?***

"Behold now Behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 

Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 

he moveth his tail like a cedar: the senews of his stones are wrapped together. 

his bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are bars of iron. 

he is the chief of the ways of God: He that made him can make His sword to approach unto him. 

surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 

He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 

the shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 

behold he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up jordan into his mouth. 

he taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.Job 40:15-24

andreas.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Now, my questions for public schools:
> 1. How did dino's get here in the first place?
> 2. Supposing life came from non-life how did one-celled organism (non-conscious) evolve into something like a dinosaur? That is, tell me the story.
> 3. Taking the current dogma, tell me how the two-way lungs of the dino evolved into the one-way lungs of the birds, all in small gradual changes that were benerficial to the species?
> 4. After those are surmounted, tell me how scales evolved into feathers.
> 5. Tell me how flight itself evolved.


Those are some good questions. In all of your debates and interactions with athiests and/or evolutions, have they ever come up with reasonable answers to these types of questions?


----------



## Larry Hughes

1. Were there dinosaurs?

Yes.

2. Did dinosaurs live at the same time as men?

Not always man was created last.

3. Was there a global ice age?

No, depends on what you mean by global. E.g., No geologic evidence of such south of the Ohio River.

4. Did dinosaurs of that size live all over the world, or was it restricted to a particular area?

Most of the fossils associated with the "Jurrasic type" dinosaurs are in fairly limited areas like limited western US locals, some in China, etc...

5. Is there any hint in the scriptures that any of the writers saw these large dinosaurs or had even heard of them?

Yes, but the term dinosaur is a 20th century term.

6. What caused the dinosaurs to become extinct?

Up for grabs, some maybe by natural attrition, just like the Dodo Bird. Some catastophically.

Bonus: The rock record does not support evolution. Two of the biggest components against it are 1. One would expect transition species and 2. connected with #1, one would expect great populations of the numerous transitions. Neither exist.

Bonus 2: Scientists recently created petrified wood in literally days at the National Science Laboratory in Washington using a pine wood block, high temperatures, argon gas to eleminate O2, and a pre-silcon bath (the crystal replacement.

Larry


----------



## TimV

"Yes. They were created in the garden with all the other creatures and coexosted just fine. Some secular researchers are even starting to concede this now, that mammals and dinosaurs coexisted."

There was just the discovery of a dinosaur in the belly of a fossil mammal all over the news.


----------



## lwadkins

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> "Oh there's green allegators and long necked geese, humpy back camels and chimpanzees....." Nevermind



"The Unicorn by The Irish Rovers....These folks are still around.

http://www.irishrovers.info/clips.htm


----------



## john_Mark

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0112_050112_dino_eater.html

Read about mammals eating dinosaurs above. I wonder what kind of sauce they put on 'em?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> "Yes. They were created in the garden with all the other creatures and coexosted just fine. Some secular researchers are even starting to concede this now, that mammals and dinosaurs coexisted."
> 
> There was just the discovery of a dinosaur in the belly of a fossil mammal all over the news.



Hey! Another opportunity for JD's Pet Theory!!! 

My 2 cents...

Resolving some Creationist time issues 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Problem 

For many Christians, strict Creationism has a seeming weakness that 
the proponents of evolutionary theory exploit. “Why does 
everything seem older than the 6 – 10K period of time Creation is 
supposed to exist?” This has lead to the development of several 
systematic creation viewpoints; Evolutionary Creationists, Young 
Earth Creationists, Days as Age Creationist, Creation Scientists, 
etc. ad infinitum. None of which seem to satisfactorily resolve 
non-Darwinian-evolutionary, old earth, Adam and Eve biblical evidence, as 
well as supposed geologic and paleontological evidence and 
theories. 

I have formulated an alternative theory I believe can help resolve 
many of the questions raised by Christians and non-Christians 
alike. I call it the Ancient Adam theory. 

Creation 

In my theory, Creation was completed within the 6 day stricture 
proclaimed by the Bible. Earth was developed as a complex biosphere 
that existed now as it did then. All lifeforms existed simultaneously. 
Life and death, adaptation, extinction, decomposition, geologic change: all present 
and sustained by the Master Creator and within His will, however 
inscrutable that will is. This was true for all Creation except 
man. 

Man and the Garden 

Man was created and placed in a protected place from destructive, 
sudden change, the Garden of Eden. He was given great freedom 
within this protected area, probably roamed from it some and was prohibited from only one thing; 
eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 
(Genesis 2:17) Please note that there was one other special tree in 
the Garden: the Tree of Life. Man was not prohibited from eating 
from this Tree until after the sin of eating from the other Tree. 
(Gen. 4:22) 

Ancient-Adam 

There is no Scriptural indication of how much time passed from the 
end of the Creation period until the Fall. It is my theory that man 
existed in the Garden communing with God and Creation for 
multi-eons, sustained by the fruit of the Tree of Life. 

Some Theory Weaknesses and Resolutions 

On the Creationist, strict Biblical interpretation side, I have 
found one apparent weakness in my theory. Genesis 5:3 gives the 
apparent age of Adam as 930 (Gen. 5:5) years, but the count starts with Seth. 
Where are the firstborn, Cain and Abel? I believe they and many 
others were born before the Fall (“..be fruitful and multiply” 
– Gen 1:28) and existed as those sustain by the Tree of Life. 
Before the fall, years of life were irrelevant, only after their eyes were opened (Genesis 3:7) would years be counted or have real meaning. Thus I believe my theory 
resolves how and who Cain could marry. 

I believe it also resolves the Nephilim/"Sons of God" issue. They were Adam and Eve's pre-Fall children.


-JD

[Edited on 2-16-2005 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Larry Hughes

> For many Christians, strict Creationism has a seeming weakness that
> the proponents of evolutionary theory exploit. “Why does
> everything seem older than the 6 – 10K period of time Creation is
> supposed to exist?” This has lead to the development of several
> systematic creation viewpoints; Evolutionary Creationists, Young
> Earth Creationists, Days as Age Creationist, Creation Scientists,
> etc. ad infinitum. None of which seem to satisfactorily resolve
> non-Darwinian-evolutionary, old earth, Adam and Eve biblical evidence, as
> well as supposed geologic and paleontological evidence and
> theories.



There are irreconcilable holes in the evolutionary long-age theory. First of all it matters zero, absolutely nada, not one bit how long one extends time - for evolution cannot arise even if you gave it infinite time. That seems to be lost in many debates when evolutionist think they have Christians on the run. When in reality they still have nothing. That’s issue number one, age of the earth does not in the least support evolution no matter what the time scale is extended to.

Second is a matter of gross interpretation. Recently a series a radioactive dating experiments have been done at the base of the Grand Canyon in the country rock. Some of the oldest known exposures. Country rock is geospeak for the basement rock or the base igneous rock from which the geo-time clock is relatively set. A series of samples were taken from the same rock at very close intervals. Radiometric dating swung all over the place from the same rock.

It is a simple problem of taking micro and nano-level information and expanding it to the macro level and saying, “this nano information reflects this macro regional size information“. It would be like me looking out my front door, surveying the area in my immediate view and saying, “I’ve seen the whole world.“ A lot of gross error is introduced here. 

Third radiometric dating makes the HUGE assumption that all things started at time-clock zero. That is for example all the original material in U-Pb dating was originally U then moved to Pb. That is a huge assumption. This flies in the face of creating for functionality and a purpose. 

Forth, from the Christian side of this we can never ever forget Romans 1:18-ff. That man continually suppresses the truth with all his fallen might. Even more, we can never forget that God has chosen ONLY to reveal Himself at the point of the cross and that every other avenue fallen man seeks to “find God” the door of heaven is closed to fallen man (e.g., the Tower of Babel). Like Christ said, “even if the dead should rise they will not believe.” (paraphrase - ldh) If we could resolve this issue and it has been, they will not believe. Those that seek God these ways will not find Him because God has set but one way, truth and life and that is Christ alone, and at length man seeking these closed pathways will in the ease of their fallen nature eager to suppress the truth will say, “See there is no God.”

ldh


----------



## lwadkins

> _ Originally posted by Larry Hughes _
> "The rock record does not support evolution. Two of the biggest components against it are 1. One would expect transition species and 2. connected with #1, one would expect great populations of the numerous transitions. Neither exist."



Which is precisely why some evolutionist are returning to variations of the old "hopefull monster" theory. Where mutation occured in fits and starts. One day a dinosaur laid an egg and out came a bird.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Some Theory Weaknesses and Resolutions
> 
> On the Creationist, strict Biblical interpretation side, I have
> found one apparent weakness in my theory. Genesis 5:3 gives the
> apparent age of Adam as 930 (Gen. 5:5) years, but the count starts with Seth.
> Where are the firstborn, Cain and Abel? I believe they and many
> others were born before the Fall (“..be fruitful and multiply”
> – Gen 1:28) and existed as those sustain by the Tree of Life.
> Before the fall, years of life were irrelevant, only after their eyes were opened (Genesis 3:7) would years be counted or have real meaning. Thus I believe my theory
> resolves how and who Cain could marry.
> 
> I believe it also resolves the Nephilim/"Sons of God" issue. They were Adam and Eve's pre-Fall children.



The other weakness to your theory, despite the obvious age of Adam, is that the Bible does not show Adam and Eve having children until after the Fall. Cain and Able, their first children, were born in sin as shown by their need for sacrificing. The account of Cain and Abel demonstrates the fruit of the fallen nature of Adam's descendents. The Bible does say that Adam and Eve had further descendents but this takes place after the Fall. 

And another weakness of your theory is that, in trying to reconcile old earth vs. young earth views, you give credibility to the dating methods of geologists who base their methods on the unproven assumptions of naturalism. I asked you this before. Who decides what an "old earth" looks like? It is a presupposition. You can presuppose the natural reading of Scripture that the earth is only a few thousands years old and interpret your scientific data in light of that fact, or you can deny the natural reading of the text, and presuppose an"old" earth and interpret the data within your relativistic age speculation. I'll stick with Scripture. 

I've addresssed your theory before, so you may wonder why I'm hard on those who challenge the traditional interpretation of Genesis (and the Westminster Confession which members of the Board are suppose to subscribe too)
There are two reasons: 
One, because the reasons to doubt the traditional understanding are founded ultimately in conceding to the unproven assertions of an unbelieving worldview.
Two, because when you mess with Adam, you ultimately mess with the Second Adam, and pervert the Gospel. 

The Scriptures tell us plainly what happened. Unbelievers turn to science because they don't like God's version of their origin and would rather make their own.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> 
> 
> 
> _ Originally posted by Larry Hughes _
> "The rock record does not support evolution. Two of the biggest components against it are 1. One would expect transition species and 2. connected with #1, one would expect great populations of the numerous transitions. Neither exist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely why some evolutionist are returning to variations of the old "hopefull monster" theory. Where mutation occured in fits and starts. One day a dinosaur laid an egg and out came a bird.
Click to expand...


Too bad for them that DNA doesn't work that way


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> 
> 
> 
> _ Originally posted by Larry Hughes _
> "The rock record does not support evolution. Two of the biggest components against it are 1. One would expect transition species and 2. connected with #1, one would expect great populations of the numerous transitions. Neither exist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is precisely why some evolutionist are returning to variations of the old "hopefull monster" theory. Where mutation occured in fits and starts. One day a dinosaur laid an egg and out came a bird.
Click to expand...


Isn't this called 'punctuated equilibrium'?


----------



## lwadkins

I just love the term "hopefull monster"


----------



## Larry Hughes

'punctuated equilibrium' or 'spontaneous generation', puff the magic dragon, a rabbit out of a hat - pretty much all the same. Hopeful monster, that's a good one.

Al Mohler said a few weaks back that, cracks me up everytime I recall it, evolution is the intellectual pacifier of humanistic philosophy. As it allows them to temporarily appease the reality of a holy God. "Intellectual pacifier", that's golden!


----------



## Anton Bruckner

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> 'punctuated equilibrium' or 'spontaneous generation', puff the magic dragon, a rabbit out of a hat - pretty much all the same. Hopeful monster, that's a good one.
> 
> Al Mohler said a few weaks back that, cracks me up everytime I recall it, evolution is the intellectual pacifier of humanistic philosophy. As it allows them to temporarily appease the reality of a holy God. "Intellectual pacifier", that's golden!


 Self delusion is better than going insane from the dread of a Holy God.

Do you see the options God left us with.
1. Self Delusion; Deny that He exists. (This includes following other false religions)
2. Time: Acknowledge that He exists but you have time to repent.
3. Acknowledge that He exists and live in dread with overwhelming guilt bordering on insanity.
4. Acknowledge that He exists and repent.


----------



## Breadloaf

*Patrick - question*



> 2. Did dinosaurs live at the same time as men?
> 
> Yes. They were created in the garden with all the other creatures and coexosted just fine. Some secular researchers are even starting to concede this now, that mammals and dinosaurs coexisted.



I have never heard of any such concessions, but I don't keep my finger on the pulse of the debate. Do you have any documentation of this? 

Thanks


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Breadloaf_
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Did dinosaurs live at the same time as men?
> 
> Yes. They were created in the garden with all the other creatures and coexosted just fine. Some secular researchers are even starting to concede this now, that mammals and dinosaurs coexisted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never heard of any such concessions, but I don't keep my finger on the pulse of the debate. Do you have any documentation of this?
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...


Look at the links above in the thread. The one to Answers in Genesis is good. There also one on mammals eating dinosaurs. The found a fossil recently concuring this but I can't remember where.


----------



## blhowes

We had an interesting day, yesterday. I had a holiday from work, so the family braved the snow and we went to the Museum of Science in Boston. Its really too much to do in a day, but we took in what we could. Lots of pretty neat stuff.

Two things stood out for me. First, I marvelled at God's creation as we went to a 'Bug Show' where you wear those 3-D glasses and get to watch things right up close. It was really cool to watch the preying mantis get born, grow up, and then get a nice closeup of it attacking and capturing a fly. I must admit that it was a little gross watching it eat that fly (my wife kiddingly was almost ready to walk out - way too gross), but it was really an experience to watch it all, while thinking how amazing it was that God just spoke the word and all this came into existance.

The second thing that stood out really amazed me. It was the section that talked about evolution, specifically the part about the 'Big Bang'. It talked about the extreme temperature when the Big Bang occurred. It just amazed me that people could believe matter at such high temperature could just naturally cool down over umpteen years and that part of that molten mass would eventually form this orderly planet. Such faith! Its amazing!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

It's been many years, but I have been to the Museum of Science in Boston, and just last week I visited the Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC. I always hear Carl [P]agan's voice in my head "Billions and billions of years ago..."

Everything taught about evolution as fact not theory flies in the face of legitimate scientific study which can only be imperical and reproduceable. You're right, Bob, it's a religion.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> It's been many years, but I have been to the Museum of Science in Boston, and just last week I visited the Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC. I always hear Carl [P]agan's voice in my head "Billions and billions of years ago..."


The more I think about it, the less important the time element seems. Have you ever tried to picture some of the things evolution teaches? You go from the big bang, where the matter is just super, super hot, and an explosion more intense than anything we've ever seen...to the orderly world we see around us today. Let's forget about billions and billions of years. Let's talk eternity. I can't imagine something going from the big bang to the order we see now, occuring naturally, even if the evolution lasted eternity. 



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Everything taught about evolution as fact not theory flies in the face of legitimate scientific study which can only be imperical and reproduceable. You're right, Bob, it's a religion.


One thing I did notice in the evolution section is that they did call it the "Theory" of evolution.

But, you're right, it is a religion, even if its disciples don't realize it. If only we could convince the ACLU - you know, separation of church and state and all.


----------



## LadyFlynt

We went to the St Louis Science Centre this past Summer/Autumn when they were having a dinosaur archealogical "dig". These ppl brought in real bones that still needed cleaning and even allowed local teenagers to help clean them, teaching them the proper methods and use of the proper tools to do so of course. My children got into the room and the older lady showed them the bones and then started in on the "millions of years" and "before man"...and didn't get much further. My then 7yr old son, interupted her in a very polite manner and informed her that the "millions of years" theory was untrue and that mankind and dinosaurs did live together. She was at a loss momentarily, looked at me, then stated that "well, that is what your beliefs are and my beliefs are different". A truer statement could not have been made!!! Her BELIEFS....denotating faith, instinctive draw toward a belief system of some sort (though faulty). I smiled and talked with my son and daughter later. But I think the lady was glad to be rid of us and glad that the room was too small and only allowed one family in at a time.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> We went to the St Louis Science Centre this past Summer/Autumn when they were having a dinosaur archealogical "dig". These ppl brought in real bones that still needed cleaning and even allowed local teenagers to help clean them, teaching them the proper methods and use of the proper tools to do so of course. My children got into the room and the older lady showed them the bones and then started in on the "millions of years" and "before man"...and didn't get much further. My then 7yr old son, interupted her in a very polite manner and informed her that the "millions of years" theory was untrue and that mankind and dinosaurs did live together. She was at a loss momentarily, looked at me, then stated that "well, that is what your beliefs are and my beliefs are different". A truer statement could not have been made!!! Her BELIEFS....denotating faith, instinctive draw toward a belief system of some sort (though faulty). I smiled and talked with my son and daughter later. But I think the lady was glad to be rid of us and glad that the room was too small and only allowed one family in at a time.


That's an excellent story/testimony. 

You said she was at a loss momentarily, and then she looked at you. Just curious. How'd you respond at that point? Did you manage to remain expressionless? Did you smile at her? Did you let out a "Yeah! That's my boy!!!"? 

[Edited on 2-22-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> "Yeah! That's my boy!!!"?
> 
> [Edited on 2-22-2005 by blhowes]



I wanted to!!! Boy, I sure was thinking it! Instead, I just stood there with my continual smile...though at that point it may have seemed a bit smug...I was trying to appear gracious. I know she was trying not to offend me or contradict what I obviously had taught my children.

Before we left (after my hubby took the children out of the room), I asked for a pen and paper and left her AIG's website and another. I wrote on there Big Bang/Evolution, Old Earth/Gap Theory, and Young Earth/Creationist. I let her know that these websites were from the last perspective and that homeschoolers come from all of these camps...but that most come from the last camp and this is a BIG homeschooling area. (Basically letting her know she might run into more of me  ) And here is our scientific grounding if she is interested.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I wanted to!!! Boy, I sure was thinking it! Instead, I just stood there with my continual smile...though at that point it may have seemed a bit smug...I was trying to appear gracious. I know she was trying not to offend me or contradict what I obviously had taught my children.


Your self control is admirable. 



> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Before we left (after my hubby took the children out of the room), I asked for a pen and paper and left her AIG's website and another. I wrote on there Big Bang/Evolution, Old Earth/Gap Theory, and Young Earth/Creationist. I let her know that these websites were from the last perspective and that homeschoolers come from all of these camps...but that most come from the last camp and this is a BIG homeschooling area. (Basically letting her know she might run into more of me  ) And here is our scientific grounding if she is interested.


Neat. Wouldn't it be great if your giving her those web addresses, initiated by your son's comments, caused her to re-evaluate her beliefs? Imagine hearing her testimony of God's grace someday:

"...there I was, doing my presentation about where the dinosaurs came from and when they lived, when this little 7-year old says..."

Luk 18:27, 
Bob

[Edited on 2-22-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## LadyFlynt

So true, I do pray that the Lord draws her. It is amazing how many scientists HAVE come to Him, with their self-defeating proclaimations being the means that He uses!


----------

