LibertyGal on Nostr: Yes, dinosaurs really existed, but not as long ago as we are told. In Job, there are ...
Yes, dinosaurs really existed, but not as long ago as we are told. In Job, there are descriptions of two creatures (behemoth and leviathan) which are almost certainly dinosaurs. The description of behemoth matches a sauropod. This is despite the fact that dinosaur fossils weren't discovered until the 1800s. There are also lots of tapestries, carvings, etc. showing dinosaurs with people. They can't have known what dinosaurs looked like unless people actually existed with the dinosaurs. We are now also regularly finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones that can't exist for millions of years, but if these dinosaurs were buried by the global flood in the Bible, then we would expect to see some of this soft tissue.
Most of the so-called ages are determined using circular reasoning. The fossils are aged based o the which rock layer it is found in, while the rock layers are aged based on which fossils are in it. Yes, radiometric dating is used in some rocks (but not the sedimentary rocks in which fossils are found), but that is very inconsistent (different methods give different ages and when rocks of known age are tested, radiometric dating gives much older dates). Also radiometric dating depends on multiple assumptions that can not be reasonably assumed. They require assuming the starting amount of parent and daughter isotope, which we can't know because we weren't there. For most of the radiometric testing based on rocks, it is assumed that there is only parent isotopes initially which insures a maximum age. They require assuming that no parent or daughter isotope enters or exits the sample over supposed millions or billions of years, which is a very unrealistic assumption especially considering most of the isotopes are water soluble. It assumes the half-life is constant over time and condition, which is the most reasonable assumption, but some studies have shown evidence that even this assumption is invalid.
Scientists are like all categories of people. Some are honestly seeking the truth. Some are actively trying to disprove God. Some think for themselves. Some refuse to investigate anything different than the current paradigm because changing the paradigm is unpopular and can cause them to lose their jobs or their research funding. Anyone who questions an old earth is pushed out of science no matter how good their evidence. Maybe even worse if their evidence is good.
Most of the so-called ages are determined using circular reasoning. The fossils are aged based o the which rock layer it is found in, while the rock layers are aged based on which fossils are in it. Yes, radiometric dating is used in some rocks (but not the sedimentary rocks in which fossils are found), but that is very inconsistent (different methods give different ages and when rocks of known age are tested, radiometric dating gives much older dates). Also radiometric dating depends on multiple assumptions that can not be reasonably assumed. They require assuming the starting amount of parent and daughter isotope, which we can't know because we weren't there. For most of the radiometric testing based on rocks, it is assumed that there is only parent isotopes initially which insures a maximum age. They require assuming that no parent or daughter isotope enters or exits the sample over supposed millions or billions of years, which is a very unrealistic assumption especially considering most of the isotopes are water soluble. It assumes the half-life is constant over time and condition, which is the most reasonable assumption, but some studies have shown evidence that even this assumption is invalid.
Scientists are like all categories of people. Some are honestly seeking the truth. Some are actively trying to disprove God. Some think for themselves. Some refuse to investigate anything different than the current paradigm because changing the paradigm is unpopular and can cause them to lose their jobs or their research funding. Anyone who questions an old earth is pushed out of science no matter how good their evidence. Maybe even worse if their evidence is good.