you're reading...
Biblical authority, Creation/Evolution, science

Defending Dinosaurs and the Bible


On May 17th, 2015 I presented my talk on Dinosaurs and the Bible at my church.  A couple weeks later I was notified of another church in town doing a presentation called “Faith in a Jurassic World”.  I decided to check it out since I am automatically skeptical.  Turns out my concerns were valid.  They were teaching the predominant view of deep time and evolution to fit in with the Bible.  I decided to engage them on their Facebook page.  Normally I wouldn’t expect much of a return comment, but the pastor decided to take me on!  This went on for a couple days.  He hasn’t replied to my last comment in the last week so I believe the exchange is over.  I publish it here for your reading pleasure and to equip you on how to defend our position.  I have blanked out the church’s information out of respect.  Let me know your thoughts below…




About Tim



17 thoughts on “Defending Dinosaurs and the Bible

  1. Amazing!
    Truly mind blowing.

    Posted by Arkenaten | July 2, 2015, 3:50 pm
  2. What keeps people from fully believing God’s Word? Scientific evidence? No… It is fear and fear alone.

    Posted by jalexander2012 | July 6, 2015, 9:53 pm
  3. I thought I would re read this in case I missed something.
    I’m curious, Tim. Do you eschew antibiotics for fear the science is suspect?

    Posted by Arkenaten | September 5, 2015, 8:08 pm
    • I fear using too much antibiotics too often. I have personally seen the degenerative powers of that. But overall, no I am not anti-antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance is a good example of modern, observational science. It is a great example of micro-evolution (change within a kind) and degeneration (the opposite of evolution). Each new resistance loses the ability to combat the previous strain. I think antibiotic resistance is a good example of creation.

      Posted by Tim | September 5, 2015, 10:04 pm
      • Creation? Really? Of course, I am going to presume scientists reject such an assertion from one such as you who is unqualified. I would be right, I’m sure, yes?

        And now that there is evidence of the method of settlement of Palestine ( ancient Canaan), which demonstrates the fallacious nature of the biblical account of the Exodus, how do deal with the Pentateuch being regarded as historical fiction by all the world’s leading archaeologists?
        How do you come to terms with this?

        Posted by Arkenaten | September 6, 2015, 9:45 am
  4. Hey there!

    Sorry for the long comment!

    I read the exchange you had with the other pastor, and I have to say that your view depends on weighing the information in the Bible as more important than any independent markers of accuracy or truthfulness. That’s a big problem when trying to advocate a position that the Bible is more factually accurate than scientific theories that contradict it.

    Carbon-dating, for example, is used to determine the age of certain fossils. It either decays at a consistent rate, or it doesn’t. If it does, then the universe is indeed older by any Biblical estimate. If it does not, then we have an error in theory that is unverifiable. Resorting to the Bible to resolve this difference is of no help, because it doesn’t state anywhere (that I’m aware of) where your deity resolved to intentionally create a planet that had the appearance of ancient existence but was actually really young.

    Furthermore, if evolution is not true, then principles of selective breeding, genetics, biology, the passing of genetic information from parent to offspring, and even knowledge about DNA and RNA automatically become suspect. To accept your claims about the errors of evolution would also require accepting that there are gaping holes in other analysis, and also to ignore that these other principles support the validity of the theory of evolution.

    The Bible does not have those external consistencies confirming its existence, and therefore there isn’t a reason to hold it as more accurate a record of natural history than scientific principles which analyze it.

    Posted by siriusbizinus | September 7, 2015, 5:26 am
    • As for your carbon/radiometric dating, yes they decay at a constant rate TODAY. We have no doubt of that. We can use that to make predictions that are working. BUT we have no evidence that it didn’t work differently at some specific point in the past: say the 6-day creation week. IF God really created in 6 days, might radiometric decay have worked differently during that week and thus impact today’s results if we ignore that? Might it have worked differently when the world was changed following original sin (the curse)? Might it have worked differently when the world was submerged in a worldwide flood during Noah’s time? All these factors give us ample reason to believe that although decay is constant today, there may have been supernatural events in the past that make using it to judge the ancient past invalid.

      The second part of your comment is confusing natural selection on micro-evolution and different kinds of animals changing into other (macro-evolution). The first kind is 100% biblical and observable in nature. No creationist denies this. The second kind is incompatable with the Bible and 100% unobserved… and therefore unscientific.

      Thanks for the comment!

      Posted by Tim | September 7, 2015, 3:11 pm
      • Hello again!

        The problem with your assertions about carbon dating is that we have no way to test whether or not you’re correct. Resorting to the Bible to assert that the Bible is correct results in a circular argument, so we’re left with outside sources of information. None of those sources of information indicate anywhere that carbon dating has different rates of decay.

        As to the second part of my comment, the principles I listed are actually conforming to principles of macro-evolution. We see all kinds of things which are consistent with this view. For example, we share quite a bit of DNA strands with other primates. This is consistent with macro-evolution.

        Is there a testable, non-testimonial bit of evidence which indicates macro-evolution is not valid? If so, that would be of tremendous interest.

        Posted by siriusbizinus | September 7, 2015, 5:06 pm
        • Many forms of historical sciences have to deal with a certain amount of circular reasoning and assumptions. It’s unavoidable, even on the evolutionist side. You assume uniformity because that’s what you observe today. The assumption makes sense. I’ve never argued that it doesn’t make sense. I’m just saying the conclusions you draw from that assumption do not “prove” the Bible’s version of history wrong because the Bible assertions rest on completely different assumptions about the past. Both are unverifiable (yours included).

          Posted by Tim | September 7, 2015, 5:59 pm
          • Well, let’s think about that.

            The assumption I’m making is that the universe can be investigated based on observation, measurement, and testable hypotheses. I don’t have to assume uniformity because I can test it. Repeated testing has yielded the idea that there is uniform decay of carbon. If that observation changes, then the entire idea can be discarded. In that manner, it’s as verified as predicting that the sky will be blue tomorrow. If I wake up and it’s yellow, then I can’t think that idea is valid anymore (but that’s probably not the worst thing I’ll need to worry about if that happens).

            What I’m driving is that you have all of these other observations which have withstood repeated scrutiny – hundreds and thousands of people looking at the sky and noting that it’s blue.

            Posted by siriusbizinus | September 7, 2015, 7:15 pm
            • You said that the assumption you are making can be tested my observation, measurement, and tests. Please explain to me how exactly you observe, measure, and test the rate of radioactive decay 4.5 billion years ago? If you cannot test it, you are assuming it – no different than what I am doing assuming something else.

              So… I reject your claim that your conclusions are better because they are based on observation, measurement, and tests.

              Posted by Tim | September 7, 2015, 9:05 pm
              • Okay then. By that reasoning, nobody can observe and test that the sky was blue before they were born. While people are allowed to reject that the sky was blue before they were born, that doesn’t make their assertions any more correct or accurate.

                Posted by siriusbizinus | September 7, 2015, 10:20 pm
                • I believe we have good recorded observations for hundreds of years of modern science to rely on, and we have no reason to assume the sky may not have been blue before that. I am only saying that the historical record in the Bible gives us reason to dispute the uniformitarianism assumption involved in radiometric dating.

                  Again, the biggest point tho is that the traditional interpretation of radiometric dating does not prove wrong the interpretation of young-earth creation.

                  Posted by Tim | September 7, 2015, 10:34 pm


  1. Pingback: And did those feet, in ancient times. | A Tale Unfolds - September 6, 2015

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: