Another two from the same website:
Question: "What caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?"
Answer: The extinction of the dinosaurs is an enigma that has captivated scientists for well over a century. We find the fossilized remains of giant reptiles all over the Earth and yet we do not see any of these creatures alive today. What happened to them all?
The conventional paradigm says that they mysteriously disappeared around 65 million years ago. An assortment of explanations has been offered as to why. The two most popular hypotheses are the Impact Event Hypothesis and the Massive Volcanism Hypothesis. The first proposes that one or more asteroids struck the Earth causing a “nuclear winter” which wiped out the dinosaurs. The second blames intense volcanism for their demise. Both make note of the high concentration of Iridium (Ir) found buried in the sediments which separate the Cretaceous period from the Paleogene (known as the K-Pg boundary; formerly known as the K-T boundary), which, according to the conventional paradigm, was the period in Earth’s history during which the dinosaurs went extinct.
Both hypotheses take some of the evidence into account while ignoring some. For example, if either hypothesis is correct and there is a 60+ million year gap between man and dinosaur, how then do we explain petroglyphs and other forms of ancient art which depict humans interacting with such familiar dinosaurs as the triceratops, stegosaurus, tyrannosaurus and the sauropods (in some cases taming them and riding them around)? Moreover, fossilized dinosaur prints have been found in the same rock layers as hoof-prints and human footprints. How are we supposed to explain this within the framework of the conventional perspective? And why is that ancient cultures from every inhabited continent on the planet record interactions with giant reptiles? These creatures are commonly known to us today as “dragons” and have been collectively relegated to mythology.
But we must ask ourselves, how is it that so many isolated cultures from around the world came to share the same mythology so universally? Could there be a core historical truth to the legends? Could it be that the giant reptiles we find buried in the dirt have something to do with the giant reptiles our ancestors spoke of just centuries years ago? We believe that this is the case. The preponderance of evidence suggests to us that the conventional perspective is fundamentally flawed. Mankind appears to have collective amnesia regarding this matter, and we have effectively constituted a “scientific” paradigm to keep us in the dark.
How then do we account for the extinction of the dinosaurs? The same way we account for the extinction of the other estimated 20,000 to 2 million species which scientists believe may have gone extinct over the past century alone – a combination of climate change and the proliferation of the human species. Climatic change can be very destructive to ecosystems in general, and we tend to kill or drive out all of the major competition in particular. That is why you don't find too many other predators – lions, tigers and bears, etc – in our suburbs and cities, or even our rural communities. We are at the very top of the food chain for a reason.
In Hollywood movies like Jurassic Park we see creatures like the Tyrannosaurus Rex and Velociraptors hunting us down and eating us alive. And no doubt, if humans and dinosaurs coexisted some of that certainly happened. But for the most part the opposite was true. We hunted them down and cooked them for dinner. In many of the legends and much of the ancient artwork that is exactly what we find—humans hunting down the giant reptiles and killing them. Lions and tigers and bears did not have it quite as bad as the dinosaurs (hence why they are still around). That is because our ancestors seemed particularly fixated on “slaying the dragon!”
So what happened to the dinosaurs? Apparently the ones that survived global climatic change got eaten by us. Some may still survive in remote areas of the world which have not yet come under our complete dominion, and there are hundreds of such sightings every year to this effect – especially from indigenous, primitive people groups in remote areas who speak to incredulous Western scientists (who naturally do not believe the natives because of their entrenched so-called “scientific” presuppositions. In our view, this is wrong. Science should be the impartial investigation of evidence without prejudice, not an arbitrary human effort to prop up flawed theoretical histories of the Earth).
Question: "What does the Bible say about Creation vs. evolution?"
Answer: It is not the purpose of this answer to present a scientific argument in the creation vs. evolution debate. For scientific arguments for creation and/or against evolution, we highly recommend Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. The purpose of this article is to explain why, according to the Bible, the creation vs. evolution debate even exists. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”
A key factor in the debate is that the majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution and others who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world, and everything proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution betters fits with the data. However, these represent an insignificant percentage of the scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without any intervention of a higher being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.
For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence. Although belief in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, he was the first to develop a plausible model for the process of evolution—natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.
The Bible tells us, “The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God. “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”
Evolutionary scientists mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested; it must be “naturalistic.” Creation is by definition “supernatural.” God and the supernatural cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes); therefore, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.
However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered “scientific.” This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.”
If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.
sad:
erplexed
