klanka wrote:
The ark was only a few thousand years ago, dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago
Ah. Here is dilemma number one. Do you believe what God tells you via His Word, or do you believe what man tells you via science? Either way it takes faith. What I found does not work is to combine the two. Try reading the first sections of Genesis and fitting millions of years in and add the practicality of millions of years and it does not work. I concluded that either the Bible is true, or scientific theory in evolution is true. The two don't mix if one looks into it. So it remains faith as evidence only works from both sides if one sees the evidence and has faith in the approach one takes on the evidene. Scientists themselves are split between a belief in a Creator and a chance happening known as The Big Bang, and the many other theories people have as there are quite a few.
In regards to the various animals etc. Some types there were seven pairs of animals taken. Other types there were two. (Should say creatures to include insects and birds etc).
If one ignores breeding patterns which have given us the many breeds and takes them back just to foundational pairs, such as a pair of dogs etc, there are actually a much smaller group of animals that all the ones we have today that essentually would need to be saved.
We see evidenceeven today of breeding. What we don't see is a natural breeding of one type of species to another such as dogs and cats as an example. Even breeds that are only found as a direct result of cross breeding such as mules esentually come from the horse family group, be they a donkey, a horse or something else in that group such as a zebra.
I did hear it mentioned once by scientists that all the species of dinosaur essentually come down to just six types. I don't know enough about them, but I can understand where this was coming from.
The evidence totheage of the earth can be found to support the Bible or evolution depending on who is approaching it and from what angle and from what calibration of their toolsand equipment that they use. Where I think the differences occur are that it is assumed that age and carbon content is a straight line graph where reality does not work like that ezpecially since there has been a flood as pre-flood atmospheric conditions were very different to now. We also can't rely on just carbon content to date, as one may well have heard of the 6week snail shell experiment that was dated to give a reading of 6million years.
Dating methods work when we can calibrate the equipment used but for this we HAVE to rely on known factors and these do not equate for totally different climates we have had in the past which can radically effect results. Is a bit like counting rings on a tree assuming that one ring = one year where many years there can be up to four rings (Or even more in some cases) rings per year due to some areas having multiple seasonal changes, so the ring method has been proven as an inaccurate way to date a tree and can only serve as a rough guide. (A bit like using fingerprints alone as evidence when one in every 10,000 is the same or using DNA when 1 in every 100,000 is the same. One needs at least two sources of evidence to prove someone was at the scene of a crime before a court can act on the evidence. Dating the age of ancient things we need a similar approach and not to rely on just the one method. At the end of the day it all comes down to faith).
09 Nov 2022, 4:33 pm
