My child,
Listen to the river, hear the sounds of the birds, the insects.
Feel the warmth of the sun on your skin.
Put aside all your worries about what tomorrow may bring, for today is a gift of love from me to you.
Yes, the world is still going on just like it was yesterday, there is still pain, still suffering, still sickness and death.
But I want what is best for you, not what is worst.
My heart grieves when you grieve, and rejoices when you rejoice.
The world may hurt you and hate you, but I love you.
I always have. I always will.
It was my love for you that created this all for you.
It was my love for you that fashioned the trees, the butterflies, the river. It was my love for you that made me give up everything to attempt and win you back. I was heartbroken when you left me, when I could see you were going to die.
So my love for you caused me to send my son to earth to be judged in your place, and take your punishment of death.
You may have hated me, but that doesn't matter - I loved you.
You may have forgotten me, but I remember you.
You may not have lived for me, but I died for you.
Everything you have lost, I want to give back.
Every one of your failures, I want to remove.
Every one of your mistakes, I want to forgive.
Come home, I miss you.
I'm calling out to you.
From Your Father God.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Reply to Stephen
Article:
http://www.apologeticspress.com/articles/1973
Email:
this argument is not convincing. not sure if you read it or not, they are using bison slaughtering from 100 years ago, suggesting their fossils are not seen today. okay fair enough but then they go on to say dinosaurs were able to be fossilised becausae of something massive (flood), but why then are humans not fossilised with dinosaurs, afterall didn't the flood cover all the earth, and therefore humans. they then go on to say, of all fossils found, only 1% are vertabrates suggesting that there are little found. I would like to point out that dinosaurs are vertabrates as well as humans so this is contradictory as the 1% should include humans, there surely could'nt have been as many dinosaurs as humans as lack of space and resources. vertabrates is any creature with a spine. sorry but these people who wrote this article are not convincing what so ever and their arguments do not lead to any outcome. my favourite example of this reading is to suggest the bones of humans and dinosaurs may have been found together but........someone just thought it was a pile of old bones so pass me the dynamite to get more coal out, shows the level of intelligence of the people who wrote this. i mean if they want to seem educated in this area they would not use POSSIBLE nowadays scenarios to back their argument. if we were sticking with this idea, wouldn't most people at least move the bones to be re-examined later. i know i sure would if i stumbled on dinosaur bones as it not an everyday thing to find.
have a read over it and see if you agree to what i 'm questioning
Reply:
I read the article attached to your email, and your reply, and can see what you are saying to some degree, however I think that your objections can be answered.
As you said, “[the article states that] dinosaurs were able to be fossilized because of something massive (flood), but why then are humans not fossilized with dinosaurs, afterall didn’t the flood cover all the earth, and therefore humans.” I guess the answer to that is that there would have also been humans fossilized during the flood, but this doesn’t mean to say that their fossils would be discovered with dinosaur fossils. As you picked up, “of all fossils found, only 1% are vertebrates suggesting that there are little found.” I would agree that humans would be included in that 1% along with dinosaurs, and the article does say human fossils have been discovered. But, I think that what the article is trying to show is that because all vertebrates that have been fossilized only make up 1% of fossils, and because fossils are very rare, there are very few fossils of either dinosaurs or humans to be found (according to the article, only about 2100 ‘articulated’ dinosaur bones, and a number of hominid fossils that would ‘barely cover a billiard table.’).
And what the article seems to say to me is that if both dinosaur and human fossils are rare, then finding dinosaur and human fossils in the same place is far more remote. It asks “Can we prove that Dodo birds and humans once lived together by observing their fossilized remains together in a particular layer of rock?” The answer is quite obviously ‘No’. But why? Because despite the fact that humans and Dodos co-existed, and even interacted (eg. Humans killing off all the Dodos), finding them buried in the same place would be very unusual. In the same way, finding humans buried with elephants would be unlikely, because the two species don’t live in the same area anyhow. Wouldn’t this be the same for dinosaurs? If dinosaurs were still around, what would the chances be of finding humans living in the same area, close enough that when they died their bodies would fall in the same place. Even if they did, the article points out that very few of those bodies would turn into fossils. So, the chances of finding dinosaurs and humans fossilized together, even if they were contemporaries, is virtually nil.
As far as to why if humans and dinosaurs were fossilized at the same time there are more dinosaur fossils discovered than human fossils, it probably has something to do with the way they were fossilized. The article states that “In order for something to become fossilized, it must be buried quickly in just the right place.” As you stated, this would fit nicely into the story of a global flood. But if they were buried by such a catastrophic global event, and quickly buried, under layers and layers of rocks, this would result in the bodies being tossed around by water and pounded by rocks before burial. Whereas tiny animals, such as rodents, or non-vertebrate creatures like insects, fish etc. would be buried quickly and not receive such a battering (meaning that there would be more fossils of these creatures and also better preserved ones), bigger creatures would receive this pounding and crushing before burial, resulting in less fossil remains and far less complete fossils (such as with the lack of human remains). However, once a creature got bigger than a certain size, although the pounding and breaking apart of bodies would still continue, the individual bones would have better chance of a) being at least partially in tact, and b) being discovered after being fossilized. And this is what we find with dinosaurs – very few bones still together, but remains far more common than those of humans.
Meanwhile I don’t want to second-guess the authors of the article, but to me the story of someone blowing up dinosaur/human bones together with dynamite is just trying to use a bit of humour to show that in most cases where digging is done, it is done with heavy machinery and/or explosives, and that bones etc. could be blown apart before they were even seen by people. I don’t really think it makes a huge difference, though, if we remember that the possibility of finding humans and dinosaurs fossilized together had already been shown as implausible.
However, you didn’t say a lot about the last few paragraphs of the article. What do you think about the metal hammer with a wooden handle being dug out of Cretaceous limestone dated at 135 million years old, or the human artifacts and footprints being found in coal – both of those layers being ones “in which dinosaur bones supposedly should be found)”.
Hope this helps, feel free to email me back if you are not happy with my response, or if you want to discuss anything more.
God bless.
http://www.apologeticspress.com/articles/1973
Email:
this argument is not convincing. not sure if you read it or not, they are using bison slaughtering from 100 years ago, suggesting their fossils are not seen today. okay fair enough but then they go on to say dinosaurs were able to be fossilised becausae of something massive (flood), but why then are humans not fossilised with dinosaurs, afterall didn't the flood cover all the earth, and therefore humans. they then go on to say, of all fossils found, only 1% are vertabrates suggesting that there are little found. I would like to point out that dinosaurs are vertabrates as well as humans so this is contradictory as the 1% should include humans, there surely could'nt have been as many dinosaurs as humans as lack of space and resources. vertabrates is any creature with a spine. sorry but these people who wrote this article are not convincing what so ever and their arguments do not lead to any outcome. my favourite example of this reading is to suggest the bones of humans and dinosaurs may have been found together but........someone just thought it was a pile of old bones so pass me the dynamite to get more coal out, shows the level of intelligence of the people who wrote this. i mean if they want to seem educated in this area they would not use POSSIBLE nowadays scenarios to back their argument. if we were sticking with this idea, wouldn't most people at least move the bones to be re-examined later. i know i sure would if i stumbled on dinosaur bones as it not an everyday thing to find.
have a read over it and see if you agree to what i 'm questioning
Reply:
I read the article attached to your email, and your reply, and can see what you are saying to some degree, however I think that your objections can be answered.
As you said, “[the article states that] dinosaurs were able to be fossilized because of something massive (flood), but why then are humans not fossilized with dinosaurs, afterall didn’t the flood cover all the earth, and therefore humans.” I guess the answer to that is that there would have also been humans fossilized during the flood, but this doesn’t mean to say that their fossils would be discovered with dinosaur fossils. As you picked up, “of all fossils found, only 1% are vertebrates suggesting that there are little found.” I would agree that humans would be included in that 1% along with dinosaurs, and the article does say human fossils have been discovered. But, I think that what the article is trying to show is that because all vertebrates that have been fossilized only make up 1% of fossils, and because fossils are very rare, there are very few fossils of either dinosaurs or humans to be found (according to the article, only about 2100 ‘articulated’ dinosaur bones, and a number of hominid fossils that would ‘barely cover a billiard table.’).
And what the article seems to say to me is that if both dinosaur and human fossils are rare, then finding dinosaur and human fossils in the same place is far more remote. It asks “Can we prove that Dodo birds and humans once lived together by observing their fossilized remains together in a particular layer of rock?” The answer is quite obviously ‘No’. But why? Because despite the fact that humans and Dodos co-existed, and even interacted (eg. Humans killing off all the Dodos), finding them buried in the same place would be very unusual. In the same way, finding humans buried with elephants would be unlikely, because the two species don’t live in the same area anyhow. Wouldn’t this be the same for dinosaurs? If dinosaurs were still around, what would the chances be of finding humans living in the same area, close enough that when they died their bodies would fall in the same place. Even if they did, the article points out that very few of those bodies would turn into fossils. So, the chances of finding dinosaurs and humans fossilized together, even if they were contemporaries, is virtually nil.
As far as to why if humans and dinosaurs were fossilized at the same time there are more dinosaur fossils discovered than human fossils, it probably has something to do with the way they were fossilized. The article states that “In order for something to become fossilized, it must be buried quickly in just the right place.” As you stated, this would fit nicely into the story of a global flood. But if they were buried by such a catastrophic global event, and quickly buried, under layers and layers of rocks, this would result in the bodies being tossed around by water and pounded by rocks before burial. Whereas tiny animals, such as rodents, or non-vertebrate creatures like insects, fish etc. would be buried quickly and not receive such a battering (meaning that there would be more fossils of these creatures and also better preserved ones), bigger creatures would receive this pounding and crushing before burial, resulting in less fossil remains and far less complete fossils (such as with the lack of human remains). However, once a creature got bigger than a certain size, although the pounding and breaking apart of bodies would still continue, the individual bones would have better chance of a) being at least partially in tact, and b) being discovered after being fossilized. And this is what we find with dinosaurs – very few bones still together, but remains far more common than those of humans.
Meanwhile I don’t want to second-guess the authors of the article, but to me the story of someone blowing up dinosaur/human bones together with dynamite is just trying to use a bit of humour to show that in most cases where digging is done, it is done with heavy machinery and/or explosives, and that bones etc. could be blown apart before they were even seen by people. I don’t really think it makes a huge difference, though, if we remember that the possibility of finding humans and dinosaurs fossilized together had already been shown as implausible.
However, you didn’t say a lot about the last few paragraphs of the article. What do you think about the metal hammer with a wooden handle being dug out of Cretaceous limestone dated at 135 million years old, or the human artifacts and footprints being found in coal – both of those layers being ones “in which dinosaur bones supposedly should be found)”.
Hope this helps, feel free to email me back if you are not happy with my response, or if you want to discuss anything more.
God bless.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
