Conference yukon::christian_v7

    See also Note 239.96

    Evidentally your sister n law isn't really as scientific as she thinks.
    according to science, the dinosaur age (Mezzazoic Era, not Jurrasic),
    was millions of years ago.  The argument of Noah would be moot since he
    was around, what, about five thousand years ago?!  Dinosaurs would have 
    been extinct long before Noah. 
    
    -Jack

    Jack,         
       I do not think that was the crux of the point. Fonz is looking for
    scientific substantiation of scripture, (You know the old show me the
    unimaginable by something I *can* imagine, syndrome.), rather than
    scripture substantiating science.
    
    I too was like this child. I had to come to Christ by taking the door
    off the hinges rather than opening it like normal folk. 8^)
    
      PDM_thinking

    Ohh, OK.  Well, I would strongly recommend you print off the first 7
    entries of note string 25, "Creation vs. Evolution".  It does tie in 
    with this type of discussion.
    
    -Jack

    
    
      Thanks for the pointers everyone ! I still would like more details if
    anyone has then. My sister-in-law is being patience with both my wife
    and I :^), the reason we are trying to find out more is because we take
    care of both their boys ages 4 & 2. They tell them that a giant meteor
    hit the earth and caused it to freeze thus wiping them out, we on the
    other hand share with them that the flood wiped them out ...... As you
    can see the children are getting 2 different views which is not good !
    We told Steven(4) that he should listen to his parents, but we also
    told his parents that they are responsible for what they teach him.
    Since we take care of him 4 days of the week, we stated that since we
    believe in Jesus as our Savior and Lord that we would not stop from
    teaching our children, Nico (4) & Analisa (2), of all the riches from
    the word which we believe is inerrant. Thanks again.
    
    
    				Fonz
     

	Okay, I'll make a try at this.  (Garth?  Mark? where are you?!?)
Creationists generally interpret the available evidence as suggesting that
dinosaurs existed for at least a while after the flood.  There is no record
of any kind of animal being excluded from the ark of Noah.  So we can
infer that *every* kind of land-dwelling animal was aboard the ark and was
not completely wiped out.  Garth and others have worked out the available
volume within the ark, and established that it was big enough to hold all
of the necessary animals (including the biggest dinosaurs), and all of the
feed they would need to survive for about one year.  Yes, it probably was a
lot of work cleaning up after them all.  Yes, I might have brought along
pairs of young juvenile dinosaurs, rather than their full-grown parents,
just for the sake of convenience.

	Anyway, since we don't have any dinosaurs today (except possibly
Nessie?), and the only post-flood accounts of animals that may have been
dinosaurs are very ancient accounts, some disaster must have befallen all
of them after the flood.  Again, creationists generally infer that the
flood itself led to their downfall, by permanently altering the earth's
climate

	Prior to the flood, a very different atmosphere is postulated,
which contained much more water vapor than today.  This is seen as the
"waters above the earth" mentioned in Genesis.  It is reasoned that
such an atmosphere would have warmed and stabilized the entire earth's
climate, even at the poles.  At the time of the flood, this canopy of
water vapor condensed and fell as rain.  The atmosphere became thinner, and
the "greenhouse effect" was much less pronounced.

	Lacking its blanket, much of the earth's heat energy quickly
radiated away into space.  The climate became much colder, especially
toward the poles.  The Ice Age began.  (I think) creationists generally say
there was only one Ice Age, and that it could not have lasted more than a
couple of millenia, at most.  It may have had other causes, such as reduced
light from the sun, obscured by dust and ash thrown into the stratosphere
by a violent outburst of volcanic activity at the time of the flood.  This
might have been the "fountains of the deep" mentioned in Genesis.  A meteor
hitting the earth is another possible explanation; it could also have
inclined the earth's axis, giving rise to Summer and Winter seasons.

	Keep in mind that God may have used any mechanisms He chose to
cause the flood, and wasn't restricted to the use of natural mechanisms.
He speaks, and the universe obeys His words.

	In any case, after they left the ark and had enough time to travel
thousands of miles and reproduce after their own kinds, the dinosaurs (and the
wooly mammoths) apparently couldn't handle the sudden global change to a cold
climate, and they died out.  Some of the mammoths in some polar regions
apparently froze to death while their stomachs were still full!  Of course,
*most* of the land-dwelling animals of all kinds had already been swept away
and drowned by the flood; only those in the ark survived to repopulate the
earth.  Some of the animals and people killed by the flood were quickly buried
under sediment, and parts of their bodies were preserved as fossils.

	Well, I hope this helps!

							Bob Sampson

	An afterthought: There may have been another factor involved in the
demise of some kinds of animals after the flood.  Before the flood, the
planet-wide climate was more favorable to the growth of plants.  Animals
and people could survive more easily by eating plants as food.  After the
flood, plants became a less-dependable food supply, so animals and people
began to rely more on killing and eating each other for food.  People may
have dined on dinosaurs until they became extinct.

Re: .5  (Alfonzo)

>    we on the
>    other hand share with them that the flood wiped them out ...... As you
>    can see the children are getting 2 different views which is not good !

>    believe in Jesus as our Savior and Lord that we would not stop from
>    teaching our children, Nico (4) & Analisa (2), of all the riches from
>    the word which we believe is inerrant. Thanks again.
    
You must not say that the flood wiped out the dinosaurs, because the scripture
says that the flood was to preserve 2 of each kind of (air-breathing) animal. 

They may have been wiped out before or after the flood (or both), and as 
already point out, their extinction may have come as a longer-term consequence
of the actual flood event.  But the actual flood event did not wipe them out.

	To clarify (I hope)...  With the creationist model, there are two
general scenarios possible for the extinction of dinosaurs:

(1) All dinosaurs died out *before* the flood.  How might this have
    happened?
    (A) Lots of people got very hungry, and killed them all for food.
    (B) After the Fall of Man, conditions on earth may have changed
        drastically enough (even before the flood) to become especially hostile
	to dinosaurs, which may have depended upon the idyllic conditions
	that prevailed on earth as God first created it.  Man chose to
        disobey God and obey Satan.  So the finely-tuned balance of nature
        may have begun immediately to deteriorate and become corrupted,
	since God's (legal) right to rule on earth had been undermined.
    (C) This would imply that all Biblical references which are believed to
        be dinosaurs either (i) must have been made before the flood (and
        preserved in Scriptures aboard the ark), or (ii) must be to other
        large animals (e.g. whales?), which may or may not be extinct today.

(2) Dinosaurs completely died out *after* the flood.
    (A) *Most* air-breathing animals of all kinds were killed by the flood.
    (B) Only two of each kind (except for some, reserved for later sacrifices)
        survived aboard the ark, dinosaurs included.
    (C) After leaving the ark, dinosaurs died out.  To contradict what I
        said before, they didn't necessarily travel thousands of miles or
	reproduce after their kinds.  The pairs which survived in the ark
	could have died off, without successfully reproducing at all.
	On the other hand, some or all kinds of dinosaurs may have
	reproduced and traveled far and wide after the flood.
    (D) As stated before, severe post-flood changes can be blamed for the
	extinctions: cold climate (Ice Age), sparse plant growth for food,
	and/or predation (mostly from people).
    (E) This implies that dinosaurs could have persisted after the flood
	for anywhere from a few years to a thousand years or so.

    
     .7 & .9 
    
    	Thanks Bob on the info. !!
    
    .8 
    
    	Thanks Garth, I'll be sure to correct my statement !!
    
    All others - 
    
      Thank you for your thoughts and reply's
    
    
    				Fonz
    

	But why doesn't the Bible mention the dinasours? 


Glen

Glen, 

It doesn't mention dodos either.  They aren't really essential components 
of salvation.  Only of personal curiosity.

(which isn't to say that I wouldn't have liked to make dino-input here if
only I'd had time - I may still do...) 

							Andrew

	Andrew, a whole group of creatures just died off. No mention of them
before or even when they died out. They mention the birds and animals, but not
them. Why?


Glen

  !          <<< Note 362.12 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>

Glen, 
  I believe Andrew answered that question. -
    
! It doesn't mention dodos either.  They aren't really essential components 
! of salvation.  Only of personal curiosity.
    
   PDM

    Maybe they were clumped together with birds and animals.  The Bible
    doesn't mention every type of creature by name.
    
    -steve

>    Maybe they were clumped together with birds and animals.  The Bible
>    doesn't mention every type of creature by name.

A good plausibility, Steve.

Other speculation is that the world *is* billions of years old, but the
age of man isn't.  This speculation includes that the earth was inhabited
sometime after the angels and Satan fell, but before God formed the
earth anew.  This speculation exists between the timeframe of Genesis 1:1
and Genesis 1:2:

Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
  2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face
of the deep. and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

God created -> the earth was without form and void (speculation that
Satan had ruined it) -> God began creating (or recreating) earth for
the age of man (Adam and Eve).

I like Steve's plausibility better, personally.  But all you have, Glen,
is speculation beyond the written and certain Word of God.  So you may
believe what you want outside of God's definition for what we need to know.

Mark

I have a problem with the gap theory, Mark, in that it assumes a materially 
fallen world prior to God pronouncing it (on each day of creation) as 
'good'.  Were He doing a progressive patch-up job, I think the word would 
have been 'better', each day...

Another problem with any length of timespan for living creatures before
Adam is the presence of death,  which was introduced by the fall.  It
wasn't an active part of the introductory design, rather a safeguard 
against the multiplication of evil... 

And I still think that 'evening and morning' after each stage of creation
is meant to emphasise the physical timespan of a 24-hour day....  ;-}  \
What else could it meaningfully contribute? 

						God bless
							Andrew 

>I have a problem with the gap theory, Mark, in that it assumes a materially 

I don't subscribe to it, myself, but advance it as one theory.  Thanks
for clarifying it.

I'm with Steve Leech in that if God choose 168 hours or metaphorically
1 week, it don't make one spit of difference to my salvation, nor to
anyone's how they view the "yom" or "day" of Genesis 1, other opinions
to the contrary notwithstanding.  I appreciate the fervor with which
this is defended, but do not appreciate the significance of its defense
to either Salvation or even interpretation of the whole of Scripture.

Mark

  !    <<< Note 362.18 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>


! I'm with Steve Leech in that if God choose 168 hours or metaphorically
! 1 week, it don't make one spit of difference to my salvation, nor to
    
! this is defended, but do not appreciate the significance of its defense
! to either Salvation or even interpretation of the whole of Scripture.
    
    Well said Mark. Let us focus on salvation First,..what we need to come
    to Chirst and to grow in the spirit. Once we are secure in our personal
    relationship with God, only then can we begin to examine the more
    "disputed" theologies...
    
     PDM

re.17, .18, etc.

	I'm interested in this point. What is the hebrew meaning of the words
in Gen 1:1-2?

	For instance, I've been told that the meaning of the words "and the
earth was void" is meant as "and the earth became waste". Scholars step
forward! 8*)

Ace

Zodhiates Key study Bible

....There are five major theories on the interpretation of the six says of
creation.  The pictorial day theory claims that the six days mentioned in
Genesis are the six days during which God God revealed to Moses the
events of the creation.  But the Bible relates the creation as clearly,
simply, and historically as it does the events of creation.  To interpret the
text in this manner requires the abandonment of all exegetical principles.
  The gap view claims that Genesis 1:1 describes an original creation which was
followed by the fall of Satan and great judgment.  Genesis 1:2 is then supposed
to be a description of the re-creation or restoration that took place (see 
footnote below on Genesis 1:2).  Exodus 20:11 teaches that all the universe,
including the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1), was created in a six day period
mentioned inthe first chapter of Genesis.
  The intermittent day view claims that the days mentioned are literal days, 
but that they are separated by long periods of time.  However, unless all the
creative activity is to the literal days, this view is in direct contradiction
to Exodus 20:11.
  The day-age theory claims that the word _yom_ (3117), which is the Hebrew word
for "day," is used to refer to periods of indefinite length, not to literal days.
While this is a viable meaning of the word (Lev. 14:2, 9, 10) it is not the 
common meaning, nor is the meaning of the word sufficient foundation for
the theory.
  The literal day theory accepts the clear meaning of the text: the universe was 
created in six literal days.  The various attempts to join together the 
biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable even by the
various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct opposition
to the views of modern science (e.g. the creation of trees before light).  
The phrase "evening and morning" indicates literal days (cf. Dan. 8:14 where 
the same phrase in the Hebrew is translated "day").

-------------
More towards Ace's question: Zodhaites on verse 1:2:

The Old Scofield bible maintains that the condition of the earth in verse
two is the result of judgment, and therefore interprets the verb _hayah_ (1961) 
as "became."  However, the Hebrew construction of verse two is disjunctive, 
describing the result of the creation described in verse one.  The phrase
"without form and void" is often misunderstood because of this rendering. 
These words are found only in a few other places (Is. 34:11; 45:18; Jer. 4:23).
They do not do not describe chaos, but rather emptiness.  
A better translation would be "unformed and unfilled."

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

One other note which I'll paraphrase:  The fact that God created is the fact 
that we must accept by faith.  And as some have said, if God is God, then
what took him so long to create everything?  In Hebrews 11:3 it says, 
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the
word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do
appear."  We cannot grasp how in a billion years God created, so why is it
hard to not grasp how God did it in six days?  Why He chose to do it in six days
is also a matter of little consequence, now isn't it?

Mark

	One more item to clear up - Garth used the term "air-breathing"
animals to describe the kinds that were taken aboard the ark while the
rest of their kinds perished in the flood, and I echoed the term in .9.

	It occurred to me that some air-breathers are also great swimmers;
whales, dolphins, seals, muskrats, etc.  Enough of these may have found refuge
in large lakes or open ocean; enough may have survived the flood on their
own, without requiring a shipboard swimming pool aboard the ark.

    Re: Note 362.22 by CUJO::SAMPSON
    
    Idle thoughts V4.3 release 2  ;-)
    
    Imagine a land based swimmer such as the otter, the flood opens up a
    huge space in which to swim in, along with fish and lots of dying
    non-swimming things, plus live swimmers such as fish.
    
    But since the tallest mountain is covered, the volume of water is
    somewhat large.  Will the food supply be too distributed for practical
    use by the otter?  ;-)
    
    James

         First of all, thanks for the cool discussions !
    
    Would it be safe to say that the flood destroyed *most* of the Dino's
    with the exception of the 2 of every kind ? And that some may have
    lived after the flood (ie. Wooly Mammoth) and such but died due to the
    change in climate by the opening up of the heavens ? And if so, is this
    the reference in scripture to "large animals" & "Leviathan" that
    supports this thinking ?
    
    
    				Fonz 

re.21

Mark (somehow I thought you might step forward 8*),

> However, the Hebrew construction of verse two is disjunctive, 
> describing the result of the creation described in verse one. 

Thanks for posting that reply. I believe there is a verse in Isaiah or
Jeremiah which says "God did not create the earth waste (void?)". Perhaps you
could find that verse? If so, this verse I'm referring to would make a
demarcation (perhaps inferred) between the events in Genesis 1 verse 1 and 
verse 2.

It seems that Scofield assumed that something occurred between verse 1 and 
verse 2 of Genesis 1 which invoked God's judgement.

Thanks,
ace

	"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea,
	and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."
	(Exodus 20:11) 

So much for the "gap theory".

    Re: .25
    
    Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God
        himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it,
        he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the
        LORD; and there is none else.

re.26 and .27

Two good verses and thanks...

	Exodus 20:11   "...the Lord made..." What is the Hebrew word for
"made" here and is it the same the Hebrew word for "created" in Gen 1:1?

	Isaiah 45:18 "he created it not in vain" What is the Hebrew word for
"created" and is it same as the Hebrew word for "created" in Gen 1:1? Also
the word "vain", is it the same the Hebrew word for "void" or "empty" in Gen
1:2? And this word "formed" here, what is its Hebrew meaning? 

	If you know (or think you do) please post your answers.

Thanks,
Ace

	I looked into this matter last night and discovered the following...

	Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created...."
	The word "created" in Gen 1:1 is the Hebrew word "bara". It's use in
scripture denotes the bringing things into being that were previously not.

	Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, 	
	   the sea, and all that is in them.." ,Whereas the word "made" as in
Exodus 20:11 is the Hebrew word "asah" and means to prepare something out of
existing material, like make a cake, build a house etc.

	So we may say that according to Gen 1:1 God bara the heavens and the
earth (that is brought them into being out of nothing), and we may add that
according to Exodus 20:11 the Lord asah the heavens and the earth, etc. out of
materials that pre-existed. 

	Therefore God created the heavens and earth in Gen 1:1 out of nothing
but in the six days account He made the earth out of material that was already
in existence.

Ace