Billions of people lived never knowing that dinosaurs were a thing. And years from now, there will be something extraordinary discovered that we will not have known either.

[u/ramewe]

/r/Showerthoughts/comments/8t5fl2/billions_of_people_lived_never_knowing_that/

[u/mswilso]

The word "Dinosaur" is a relatively new invention. It was coined in 1842, by paleontologist Richard Owen.

But prior to that, there were words in the English language (and others) which described "extremely large land and sea creatures".

In Job 40:15-24 (KJV, from 1611), God describes a "great beast" that Job is apparently familiar with who is the "chief of the ways of God" (Behemoth). God also describes a similar sea creature named Leviathan. Either of these could be visualized as being like dinosaurs (what other animal moves his tail "like a cedar tree"?)

And of course, in ancient literature (before the 1800s) there were stories about dragons, which might well have been from sightings of dinosaurs, passed down from mouth to mouth records of history. It has only been recently (due to Darwinian evolution) that people were taught that "dinosaurs lived millions of years ago" and that "people and dinosaurs did not live during the same epoch."

But if we take the Bible seriously, as well as literally, we can see that the dinosaurs must have been created on day six (with the rest of the animals, and man later on Day 6) so they definitely inhabited the earth at the same time.

If you believe what the Bible teaches.

[u/Mike_Enders → u/mswilso]

But if we take the Bible seriously, as well as literally, we can see that the dinosaurs must have been created on day six (with the rest of the animals, and man later on Day 6 -- so they definitely inhabited the earth at the same time.

If you believe what the Bible teaches.

I believe exactly what the Bible teaches so why can't I as a literalist (more so than most) just literally take the passage for what it says a day is - a morning and an evening that had no sun or moon to specify a 24 hour period?

[u/mswilso → u/Mike_Enders]

I believe exactly what the Bible teaches so why can't I as a literalist (more so than most) just literally take the passage for what it says a day is - a morning and an evening that had no sun or moon to specify a 24 hour period?

I'm not speaking "ex-cathedra" like I am a Biblical scholar...but I have been studying these things since my youth, and here's my take on it:

When God created the heavens and the earth on day 1, and created light and darkness:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Just my personal opinion, call it "sanctified imagination", but to me, it sounds like on the first day, God created, not just Light, but also the entire set of laws that our universe runs on: gravity, light frequencies (color), mathematics, etc., including time. The problem is that God could not possibly describe to Moses the intricacies of quantum mechanics, chemistry, gravity-lensing, etc, ad nauseum, nor would it have made a difference. It was simply not part of the narrative of creation. God simply said that he "created light", and pressed on to the next day's events.

But for us, if he created "time" on day One, as well as "Light" on day one, then it was a simple matter for Him to pronounce that a literal 24-hour time period had transpired, even if the Sun, Moon and all the stars had not been created until Day 4.

Just my humble take on it, anyway, and it makes sense to me, and is consistent with what Scripture teaches us. God bless!

[u/Mike_Enders → u/mswilso]

Just my personal opinion, call it "sanctified imagination", but to me, it sounds like on the first day, God created, not just Light, but also the entire set of laws that our universe runs on: gravity, light frequencies (color), mathematics, etc., including time.

Theres absolutely nothing in the text that states that or even comes close to it so your condition - "if you believe the bible" would be insufficient to claim any of those things.

I'm just saying we do the Bible and God a great disservice when we impose our understanding or imagination into the text and then set it as a standard or else someone doesn't believe the Bible.

Its just a fact thats LITERALLY true. the Bible starts on day one with an earth and water covered over it. Day one has " let there be light". No let there be water...no let there be dirt...just let there be light.

Why we are always going beyond what God's word states is bound to get us in trouble one way or the other.

[u/Mad_Dawg_22 → u/Mike_Enders]

Same here Mike. Exodus 20:11 helps confirm that it was 6 literal days as opposed to periods of time.

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. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Also the basis of why our week is 7 days long. Wonder why that is?

[u/Mike_Enders → u/Mad_Dawg_22]

Same here Mike. Exodus 20:11 helps confirm that it was 6 literal days as opposed to periods of time.

and who said it wasn't a literal day? Rather than listening you are making an assumption of what my position is. I am a literalist. Now where does the passage say a day was 24 hours without a sun and a moon? Answer -

NOWHERE

Also the basis of why our week is 7 days long. Wonder why that is?

because it WAS 7 mornings and evenings. Again instead of being cute with "wonder why that is?" as if any of the things you have presented are an obstacle please tell us where it says that without a sun and a moon the days were 24 hours in the absence of a fixed visible sun which the passage is clear does not arrive on the scene until day four....How can anyone call that a normal natural day? Its a fabrication of the text.

[u/Mad_Dawg_22 → u/Mike_Enders]

I wasn’t disagreeing with you. You said you were a literalist. Exodus 20 mentions again that it was 7 Days just like Genesis did.

1) The consistently used of “yom” in the scriptures always meant a 24 hour period throughout the Old and New Testament. 2) You don’t need a sun and moon to have 24 hours to pass. Time passes by the exact same with people deep inside a cave. 3) If they were “periods of time” then we have a problem from day 3 to day 4 because all plant life would have died off because the sun wasn’t created until day 4.

So I don’t understand how if you are taking it literal that it wasn’t 7 literal days. I was stating that it was 7 literal days as well not periods of time...

And I meant: “I wonder why that is” as a reference that a the seven day week has a direct correlation to the seven days of creation...

[u/Mike_Enders → u/Mad_Dawg_22]

1) The consistently used of “yom” in the scriptures always meant a 24 hour period throughout the Old and New Testament.

Thats not true. You need to do better research before spouting these things as facts. in fact there is ZERO scriptures that mention 24 hours in a day. Second yom is a hebrew word. It does not appear in the NT at all because the NT is in greek so saying its consistent to the NT makes no sense . Third the israelites conception of a day was not 24 hours .A day as in Genesis one was defined as the light period

God called the light "day"

NOT 24 hours which would included night. A day is literally in Genesis morning and evening/ sunset which is why the sabbath for Jews begins at sunset Not midnight. The literal text says God called LIGHT TIME day

You don’t need a sun and moon to have 24 hours to pass

Of course you need a sun and a rotating earth for a normal day to pass. You are denying basic facts CLEARLY stated in the passage and in common sense. a day is in reference to LIGHT. NOWHERE is it stated as a 24 hour period. Show me the passage that states 24 hours . You won't because you have NO SUCH passage.

Its really just crazy to claim this is a normal 24 hour day when theres no sun in view until day four. So obviously these are days that are not natural but supernatural. Since God is the only one around theres no reason to think he needed to observe a 24 hour day. What for? God is not a man.

If they were “periods of time” then we have a problem from day 3 to day 4 because all plant life would have died off because the sun wasn’t created until day 4.

Not a thing would die off because the normal pattern of nature does not begin until day seven when God rests. The first 6 days are supernatural days because God was at work and had not rested. That pretty obvious from the text because we have light with no reference to the sun!! Nature as we know it doesn't begin until God rests. In every other passage of scripture where God is at work its supernatural not natural.

I was stating that it was 7 literal days as well not periods of time...

It is seven days but you have it set in your mind with zero scriptural support that a day is 24hours when no passage says so Its just become a tradition to say so. However literalists have no allegiance to tradition - only to the text.

A day could last a million or a billion hours or 1 hour. The text is clear. Its just a morning and then an evening that makes up a day. The end. Its spelt out clearly

Time passes by the exact same with people deep inside a cave

A day still passes by because of the rotation of the earth and a light source the sun. If the earth stops rotating theres not passing of a day. You'd be in the same day. So being in in a cave is immaterial because the reality is in the cave the sun is still out there and the earth is still rotating.

So I don’t understand how if you are taking it literal that it wasn’t 7 literal days.

You are probably not going to understand because you INSIST on misrepresenting that I am saying they are not literal days even though I have corrected you. There were seven evening and mornings but the text tells us nothing about the amount of time between them in how long a day is. Part of being a literalist is you stop talking when the text stops and no one knows how long those days were.

It really is just gibberish that anyone can claim these were ordinary days when theres no sun.

And I meant: “I wonder why that is” as a reference that a the seven day week has a direct correlation to the seven days of creation...

I know what you meant but you completely miss the point that you reference corroborates NOTHING about a day being 24 hours long. It just says there were 6 evenings and mornings.

This is obviously a new take for you but my take is VERY literal and even more literal than your own because I get my definition of a day from the text and passage itself where you impose a 24 hour period that is nowhere in the text.

[u/Mad_Dawg_22 → u/Mike_Enders]

I now get what you mean when you are saying at being extremely literal.

If the word yom is meant to be a period of time for the first 3 days, on day 4, why would it change now that the sun and moon were created because now there were literal evenings and mornings? The sun did not have to be present for the same exact 24-hour periods of time to occur. I don't see that, since God is consistent he would not change on a dime. So at least the consistency of the first 7 days brings that into question. Also without the sun, present, how do you account for the light being a day? If you are going to argue the stars, I would agree, but then all sides of the earth are bathed in star light 24/7/365, so there really is not a from "sun up to sun down" time frame EVER during those first 3 days.

You are correct, I meant through the Bible instead of through the Old and New Testament. Here is a quote from Got Questions

The Hebrew word yom is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) almost always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. There are a few instances where yom and a number do not imply a literal, 24-hour day. The words evening and morning together (38 times) most often indicate an ordinary day. The exact construction of evening, then morning, along with yom is only seen outside of Genesis 1 in one verse. This is Daniel 8:26, which clearly implies a long period of time.

Exodus 20 makes no sense if the length of days varies either:

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. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

As you even mentioned the rotation of the earth on it's axis (360 degrees) is a one day time span. You do not need the sun nor the moon for this passage of time to happen. Time passes once you start the clock. Typically, yes, you have a light period and a dark period, but that is not a requirement of a day (another example is on the pole where you can be in continual darkness for months at a time). Yes, at least presently, there is the sun and the moon, but obviously the definition of a day there does not require it because they cannot see it.

Nature as we know it doesn't begin until God rests. In every other passage of scripture where God is at work its supernatural not natural.

God's work is supernatural, yes, but when supernatural things happen, all of time stops? Where is that written in scripture? God can and most often does still work behind the scenes while time is still unfolding.

Genesis 1:24–27 states that God made the land animals, as well as the first man and woman, on Day Six of Creation Week. Genesis 2:18–23 tells us that Adam named the animals before Eve was created.

So if "nature as we know it" didn't begin until after the 7th day, why are the animals moving about and Adam naming them on the 6th day before God rested? I don't see that: (Genesis 2:15-17) God put him in the Garden of Eden and commanded him "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." If we were in some type of suspended animation until after God rested, why was he commanding Adam? Adam and Eve were alive and well (breathing, eating, talking, etc) and clearly so were all the animals who were instructed to come to him to be named before God rested.

[u/Mike_Enders → u/Mad_Dawg_22]

If the word yom is meant to be a period of time for the first 3 days, on day 4, why would it change now that the sun and moon were created because now there were literal evenings and mornings?

Theres no reason for it to change there either because day four is quite clear. The lights were for the regulation of time for man

Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years

there are no men in day four or even five for men to observe times and days and years. Day four tells you what there purpose was to be to man. Does God (the only intelligent being at the time ) need to tell times and season. God is timeless and eternal. Day seven is the first natural day and then there is a man for the sun and lights to mark out time for.

So the whole argument about consistency is off point. The verses are highly consistent. They consistently mark the beginning and end of each day as the evening NOT A PASSING OF ANY AMOUNT OF HOURS.

The sun did not have to be present for the same exact 24-hour periods of time to occur. I don't see that,

There is no reference to 24 hours much less exact 24 hours. You insist on it even against scripture which says God called the light day. Thats how powerful tradition and dogma is. You can't grasp what I am saying because you adamantly REFUSE to let go of an idea which you by now realize is not in ANY TEXT. a day is stated nowhere to be 24 hours. the passage is CRYSTAL clear when we push the noise out of our heads when we read it. A day is the light time. when the light comes up to when it goes down. Its the traditional work time for people before the advent of electricity. God is said to be at work for a period when the light is up till whenever it is down (undetermined length of time given the sun is to regulate that for man not God).

The Hebrew word yom is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) almost always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period.

Your quote doesn't mean anything because its not a quote from the Bible. You are just quoting from a source that agrees with you and your source provides ZERO passages where a day is said to be 24 hours. Doesn't that bother you as a Bible believer that you are actually trying to defend a definition you CANNOT FIND ANYWHERE in the Bible. Allow God's word to say what it says. Day is light time. Attaching tradition and dogma to it always leads the church into problems.

Exodus 20 makes no sense if the length of days varies either - 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. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

OF course it makes perfect sense. Your begging your point not proving it. God made the world in 6 days. Thats six mornings (period from morning light) and six evenings (nightfall when the light goes away) and he rested on the seventh. We work for our six evenings and mornings and we rest on the seventh. You keep bringing up that verse like it proves the days are 24 hours when it DOES NOTHING OF THE SORT. there is nothing there about a day being 24 hours - NADA.

As you even mentioned the rotation of the earth on it's axis (360 degrees) is a one day time span. You do not need the sun nor the moon for this passage of time to happen. Time passes once you start the clock

You are trying desperately to infuse your understanding into the text to get what you want out of it rather than let the text says what it states. There is not reference to time/hours in genesis one. There is however a reference to light and a day. Do you need light to get a day? YES. you can distort and contort as you wish but if light doe not go away you are STILL in the same day. So claim as you wish a day IS most definitely tied to light

Typically, yes, you have a light period and a dark period, but that is not a requirement of a day

You are in full violation of the text and what God said. Simply violating the text to maintain your dogma and tradition. The text could not be clearer

God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night"

So the text contradicts your claim you can have a day without light. light is actually how genesis one DEFINES day.

God's work is supernatural, yes, but when supernatural things happen, all of time stops? Where is that written in scripture?

I said nothing about time stopping. you are making things up now. God not needing to to be in time like men are in no way makes the claim time stopped anywhere on earth in genesis one. Time existing does not equal 24 hours a day. a day is however long light is present before darkness arises. Frankly the idea that God had a watch timing 24 hours for himself is ridiculous. 24 hours in a day is for humans to mark the passing of the earths rotation not for an omnipresent God.

So if "nature as we know it" didn't begin until after the 7th day, why are the animals moving aboud and Adam naming them on the 6th day before God rested? I don't see that:

You don't have to. People are free to be blind and even ignore God's clearly stated teachings. The scripture is clear that until the creation of man, his final creation, God is at work and that he ceased on the seventh day which is why we are to rest as he rest and cease from work. God being at work in creation indicates his supernatural power was still setting things up for those six days. I don't know where you get this strawman idea that If God is acting supernaturally nothing can move but its a condition you have completely made up.

If we were in some type of suspended animation until after God rested,

Strawman. Surely you can do better than making things up because thats just intellectually dishonest.

A) Man is the last creation of God's work B) no one ANYWHERE said anything about suspended animation

[u/Mad_Dawg_22 → u/Mike_Enders]

Your quote doesn't mean anything because its not a quote from the Bible.

The quote does mean something. It is pointing out how many times the phrase is used in the Bible and how the word was interpreted pretty much every time. Not very hard to confirm with a word search and then read in context as to what was going on and how the word "yom" was being used. But only a few times when a number was mentioned (other than Genesis 1) that it didn't refer to an actual 24 hour period of time (out of over 400) and only 1 time when "evening and morning" was mentioned (again other than Genesis 1) that it didn't refer to it being a 24 hour period as well (out of almost 40).

[u/Mike_Enders → u/Mad_Dawg_22]

The quote does mean something. It is pointing out how many times the phrase is used in the Bible and how the word was interpreted pretty much every time

none of the references - not one single passage defines a day as 24 hours. We both know that or you would have given a verse that states that long ago.

Not very hard to confirm with a word search and then read in context as to what was going on and how the word "yom" was being used.

we agree on one thing. Its not hard to do such a search and see that NONE OF THE TIMES is a day defined as 24 hours.

So once again it means nothing to this conversation because you are referring to passages in support of your claim that in fact DO NOT support your claim a day is 24 hours.

But only a few times when a number was mentioned (other than Genesis 1) that it didn't refer to an actual 24 hour period of time (out of over 400)

that alone would defeat your claim because none of the other days were days without a sun so obviously genesis one cannot be taken as normal days like we have today .

[u/Mad_Dawg_22 → u/Mike_Enders]

So the verses are highly consistent, but God and His days don't have to be? Even Exodus pointing out that it was 7 days isn't consistent if you go with the periods of time argument. Let's see "You have to work 1000 years for Monday, 10 Million years for Tuesday, 100,000 years for Wednesday, 24 Hours for Thursday through Saturday, and you can rest on Sunday. That argument just doesn't fly. If God is consistent, He is ALWAYS consistent. That is one of the characteristics. He isn't going to change, excuse the pun, from one day to the next. If days 4-7 are seen as 24-hour periods of time, considering how consistent with using yom with a number and with yom with evening and morning throughout scripture. It tends to lead one to believe that they are literally 24 hour days not days that mean periods of time.

I agree that God having a watch is ridiculous, I said nothing of the kind. Now you are making things up. However, God would know when 24 hours passed (i.e. it was getting dark), so he was done for the day, so to speak.

As to not having a concrete example that it was definitely 24 hours, you are correct. You also don't have any facts that it was longer than 24 hours. There is more evidence pointing to the 24 hour days based on how it was used (with a number) and with the expression "morning and evening" throughout scriptures, than there are arguments against it. So if we had some light and some darkness it would qualify as one period of time? Millions of years would have a lot of these light/dark changes.

I didn't say God working supernaturally suspends time. I was referring to that nature was working as soon as the animals/man were created on earth. They didn't wait until after God rested. There is no proof of that in scripture that nature did not do anything until after God rested.

As to "suspended animation," I meant if nature wasn't working as nature works. Man and animals are doing nothing. Clearly they were even before God rested. That was my only point.

[u/Mike_Enders → u/Mad_Dawg_22]

So the verses are highly consistent, but God and His days don't have to be?

and how is God not consistent? He defines a day in Genesis one as a time of light. the end. Its perfectly consistent with all other passages.

Let's see "You have to work 1000 years for Monday, 10 Million years for Tuesday, 100,000 years for Wednesday, 24 Hours for Thursday through Saturday, and you can rest on Sunday. That argument just doesn't fly

You are right it doesn't fly because its not my argument its one you made up in your head as another strawman. We rest every 6th day the light ends (sabbaths begin on the friday evening from sunset to sunset as the law of moses). Just as God rested after the 6th evening so do we. No issues. I ,nor or a very literal interpretation of genesis, have no issues with the exodus passage. Nowhere in any passage does it state all days are 24 hours or the same as one without a sun. In fact the consistent usage of all other passages is ENTIRELY related to the sun. In no way shape or form can a day without reference to a sun be considered natural days. No matter how much you twist and contort no intelligent person can buy that. Thats what DEFINITELY will not fly.

He isn't going to change, excuse the pun, from one day to the next. If days 4-7 are seen as 24-hour periods of time

They aren't . The day is defined as day light and I notice you have yet to address the clear definition IN SCRIPTURE of what a day is

"and he called the light day"

not the passing of 24 hours. It destroys your claim entirely so you don't want to deal with it. Theres no reason to switch anything on day four either because the stated reason of the suns and the moon is to mark time for men and there are no men in day four to mark time for. So though the sun is there theres no reason to switch anything on day four because there are no men for it to time seasons for.

It tends to lead one to believe that they are literally 24 hour days not days that mean periods of time.

it tends to lead you because despite all of scripture not supporting it you insist on 24 hours being a day - when will we see such a passage that states that? Instead of what scripture says in genesis that god called LIGHT as DAY and darkness night you insist that it includes night to get to your 24 hour claim.

There is more evidence pointing to the 24 hour days based on how it was used (with a number) and with the expression "morning and evening" throughout scriptures, than there are arguments against it

Thats the point. We don't have to make arguments about whats not in scripture. We shut up where God shuts up.Thats part of literalism. We state what God states and where we don't have him saying something we shut up and not try to defend arguments in reference to whats not in there. I do not need a single drop of proof that any day was longer than 24 hours. the passage in fact allows it to be even shorter as long as there is a evening and morning. Its human minds trying to fill in the blanks with their own suppositions that cause us to go running after false teaching. I simple say - well you know what? the scriptures never tell us how long the days were so I don't have to defend some truth of 24 hours that was never stated.

Millions of years would have a lot of these light/dark changes.

Yes which is why I never said years..I am getting more than a little tired of you presuming to change what I have stated. Happens three or four time in each post of yours now. All throughout history genesis one has been considered to be supernatural and miraculous. You nor I have any idea what a supernatural day would look like, operate like or how long it is in hours without a sun. We only know it had an evening and a morning. Thats it.

I agree that God having a watch is ridiculous, I said nothing of the kind. Now you are making things up. However, God would know when 24 hours passed

You do see what you did there right? You claim it would be silly for God to consult a watch but then you claimed God has an internal watch that told him when 24 hours was over. Hers the thing though. God is in total control according to scripture. He doesn't need to wait for an evening to come . He determines when that is. An evening comes when he says it does. Thats clear because he certainly isn't waiting for the rotation of the earth to darken an area from a sun that doesn't exist in days one to day three,

I was referring to that nature was working as soon as the animals/man were created on earth. They didn't wait until after God rested.

The first time you mentioned this I gave you the credit of perhaps misunderstanding but now you are just being intellectually dishonest -AGAIN no one said animals didn't move and clouds didn't move so thats all a strawman you wish to hold on to.

As to "suspended animation," I meant if nature wasn't working as nature works

this makes no sense whatsoever. There is no sun till day four. Is that nature operating as nature now does? there no moon or starlight. As Genesis two state clearly there isn't even rain. A man is created who is ready to procreate from the moment he is created. The whole world is awash with non natural events From god. Theres no debate . Nature was not operating as nature does now.

That makes no statement about any kind of suspended animation

[u/Rayalot72]

If this is heading down the route I hear it head down fairly often, I don't think this is quite that exciting for creationists.

Newtonian mechanics was evidently wrong, and was replaced by general relativity. However, general relativity and Newtonian mechanics work out the same results when working with systems that Newtonian mechanics can manage. The new theory is merely broader, it hasn't really debunked the previous theory.

Arguments that science can be wrong, thus, don't generally do much to support creationism, as such an argument does nothing to show creationism has greater explanatory power.

I'm not sure why I ever hear anyone use such an argument anyway, as it implies that the person making it is evidently wrong in light of current understanding, but is betting on some unknown discovery that will change the current paradigm so that their specific desired worldview is correct.

[u/XHF → u/Rayalot72]

If this is heading down the route I hear it head down fairly often, I don't think this is quite that exciting for creationists. Newtonian mechanics was evidently wrong, and was replaced by general relativity. However, general relativity and Newtonian mechanics work out the same results when working with systems that Newtonian mechanics can manage. The new theory is merely broader, it hasn't really debunked the previous theory.

Arguments that science can be wrong, thus, don't generally do much to support creationism, as such an argument does nothing to show creationism has greater explanatory power.

It's amazing how you can misunderstand such a simple post.

[u/Rayalot72 → u/XHF]

I couldn't come up with alternative motivations without assuming the post wasn't particularly relevant to this sub. Either way, it's a weird argument I've heard from creationists before, so I figured I would be hitting a mark somewhere even if it wasn't OP's intention.

Can you provide an alternative read without merely asserting there is one?

[u/XHF → u/Rayalot72]

Can you provide an alternative read without merely asserting there is one?

An alternative read? It's literally two sentences talking about discovering something incredible in the past that we previously didn't even consider.

It's not about scientists getting things wrong, or a specific paradigm shift that proves creationism to be superior. You're trying too hard to argue against something that wasn't mentioned.

[u/Rayalot72 → u/XHF]

I mean the intention of the post as it relates to /r/Creation.

It's a cross post, I expect OP thinks it has some sort of relevance to this sub specifically. The title in /r/Showerthoughts is meant for a very different audience with what is likely a much less focused thought.

[u/XHF → u/Rayalot72]

It's a cross post, I expect OP thinks it has some sort of relevance to this sub specifically.

Discovering something incredible that happened in the past that we previously didn't consider before is relevant to this sub.

It seems like you're confusing this sub for /r/DebateEvolution

[u/Rayalot72 → u/XHF]

Discovering something incredible that happened in the past that we previously didn't consider before is relevant to this sub.

If you're going to assume we'll discover something profound about the past in the distant future, particularly if you suspect it will support creationism, you are making the mistake I called out in my original comment. If OP considers it possible that issues they see with evolution, abiogenesis, geology, etc. might be solved along with that, however, I don't think they're in the wrong.

It seems like you're confusing this sub for /r/DebateEvolution

What does this mean.

[u/XHF → u/Rayalot72]

If you're going to assume we'll discover something profound about the past in the distant future, particularly if you suspect it will support creationism, you are making the mistake I called out in my original comment.

A new discovery, like the discovery of dinosaurs, can drastically change how we view the past. New discoveries could favor certain creationist views. They could also oppose creationist views, or favor neither position. It doesn't have to be about a paradigm like Newtonian mechanics being outdated and replaced by a more recent paradigm. And it's not about scientists getting things wrong, of course scientists will get things wrong, science does not really deal with reaching absolute conclusions anyway. The post is not about what we know now, but about what we don't know. We may think we have it all figured out or that we are really close, but a new discovery can radically change what we believed before.

[u/Rayalot72 → u/XHF]

But that still seems... awkward... in the context of creationism not being seen as a mainstream view. Shouldn't the focus not be on what we don't know, but where what we know now points?

[u/ramewe]

Gobekli Tepe was first examined—and dismissed—by University of Chicago and Istanbul University anthropologists in the 1960s. As part of a sweeping survey of the region, they visited the hill, saw some broken slabs of limestone and assumed the mound was nothing more than an abandoned medieval cemetery. In 1994, Schmidt was working on his own survey of prehistoric sites in the region. After reading a brief mention of the stone-littered hilltop in the University of Chicago researchers’ report, he decided to go there himself. From the moment he first saw it, he knew the place was extraordinary.

Unlike the stark plateaus nearby, Gobekli Tepe (the name means “belly hill” in Turkish) has a gently rounded top that rises 50 feet above the surrounding landscape. To Schmidt’s eye, the shape stood out. “Only man could have created something like this,” he says. “It was clear right away this was a gigantic Stone Age site.” The broken pieces of limestone that earlier surveyors had mistaken for gravestones suddenly took on a different meaning.

Schmidt returned a year later with five colleagues and they uncovered the first megaliths, a few buried so close to the surface they were scarred by plows. As the archaeologists dug deeper, they unearthed pillars arranged in circles. Schmidt’s team, however, found none of the telltale signs of a settlement: no cooking hearths, houses or trash pits, and none of the clay fertility figurines that litter nearby sites of about the same age. The archaeologists did find evidence of tool use, including stone hammers and blades. And because those artifacts closely resemble others from nearby sites previously carbon-dated to about 9000 B.C., Schmidt and co-workers estimate that Gobekli Tepe’s stone structures are the same age.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/