[CS-FSLUG] [OT] Re: Interesting picture, creation vs. evolution

Chris Brault gginorio at sbcglobal.net
Fri Dec 2 21:36:39 CST 2005

Well, here is my take on the subject,

>Okay, then explain the dinosaurs and carbon dating ?
Carbon-14, the carbon isotope measured in carbon dating, has a half-life 
of approximately 22,000 years. Simple math will tell you how long 
carbon-14 will last (around 200,000 years by our current detection 
methods). Since carbon-14 is found in partially fossilized dinosaur 
bones, therefore, they are by this delimiter less than 200,000 years 
old. Add to that the presence of "soft" tissue (blood vessels and sinew) 
and you get a recipie for a death far less than 60 million years ago.


>Apparently we have no evidence of man being alive at homosapien level during
>the periods of dinosaurs. Now I fully believe in creation and have
>very strong views
>that we, man are not animals and did not come from animals. But I do
>believe there
>was a very long period of time between dinosaurs and mankind.
This view suffers from two significant problems.

First of all, if death came before the curse, then God is a liar. In the 
garden, God gave only plants for food. Therefore, if dinosaurs were 
tearing eachother up enmasse then there is a problem.

Secondly, the geological layers do no represent eons of time, but rather 
sedimentry layers from Noah's flood. They were affected by rising and 
receding waters, volcanic action and shifting continents. The sorting of 
the fossils depended on region, intelligence, size, bouyancy and 
liquefaction. Walt Brown has an experiment on his site you can do at 
home to see how it happens for yourself.

So humans, the relatively few there were in those days, were most likely 
the last to go since they probably tried to float, swim or climb to the 
highest peaks. Their fossils would old be found in the highest layers. 
In the same way, land animals should be found after sea life and more 
intelligent creatures before less intelligent ones. This doesn't seem so 
hard to believe. After all, Job walked with the dinosaurs, but if you 
recall, the fear of man was in them.


>Also the word says, "And God said, Let there be light. And there was light."
>To be honest maybe God created a very large light, an explosion of
>energy and atoms
>and then played and mixed them together to form the heavens and the
>earth. Then gathering up the dust to form man.

If I am correct about Genesis, the earth was in existence before the 
rest of the universe. It was a formless ball covered with water when the 
Spirit of God hovered over it.

As to the "light", this light was used to define "morning and evening", 
so it was probably coming from a single direction (like the sun). The 
plants were nourished by this "light" as well. Perhaps a reading of John 
1 might clear up what God meant by the "light".


> The word was divinly written and you are right for the people.
>But trying to explain a lightbulb in the BC years would have sounded ridiculas.
You'd be surprised how intelligent the ancients were. Their DNA hadn't 
degraded yet and disease wasn't a huge problem. A life  lasting a 
thousand years would create a world populated with genuises. Then the 
devil  and his evil cohorts created the Nephilim to turn them evil. It 

As you'd expect, after the flood, mankind started from scratch. That 
said, they still managed to build the pyramids, construct cities and 
irrigate fields. Mankind has rebounded, but it has taken a few tries and 
many years have passed.

Remember, no matter how degraded we are, we were still originally 
created in God's image.


>I believe that what we have discoverd and are discovering everyday
>does not dumb God
>down but astounds me even more. I subscribe to New Scientist and
>everytime I get
>through one of those magazines I am in total awe of Gods creation!

Indeed, New Scientist tests the bounds of science. It also shamelessly 
embrases evolutionary ideas. I'd read carefully.


>Remember a day is measured by a man made unit of time. If in 250 years from now
>we discover that 24 hours is not an efficient form of measurement and
>change to 13 Tanabursts that then causes the word to interpreted

The time the elapsed, no matter how it is expressed, does not change 
with man's changing whims. A certain amount of time was meant, and it 
was defined as "an evening and a morning, one day". There is no 
interpretive way around that fact that "day" means a cycle of light and 

More information about the Christiansource mailing list