The Bible and Dinosaurs

[Morten]

Curious: what do Christian's think about dinosaurs? Especially those who don't believe in evolution... where do dinosaurs fit in with God's benevolent and almighty scheme?

Chuckle, chuckle.

[Etienne]

I believe they usually say that the bones were put thee by the devil to make us doubt... but I don't think there is many creationists on this website, the others accept stoically the contradictions.

[Aluno49]

The matter of how various sorts of fundamentalist Christians address dinosaurs and the Bible is dealt with in a nuanced, scholarly fashion by Professor Ronald Numbers in his classic studfy, The Creationists - The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (1992, U. California Press). Numbers reviews the historical, written records, distinguishes various threads of thought and the developing geologic evidence. He places various sides of the dispute into contexts, both religious and scientific, that change over time.

While he is clearly not a fundamentalist himself and does not believe in special creation, Numbers understands, documents, and is entirely respectful of the positions taken by Biblical literalists. Rather than just blowing it all off as silly, Numbers' approach provides great insight into our culture and the development of the controversies (there are many). His study is essential for anyone who wishes to understand what seems to many incomprehensible positions and also wishes to understand how to respond in a public forum(such as debates about textbooks.)

Aluno

[dzebra]

It seems like dinosaurs probably lived on the planet a while ago. I imagine that dinosaurs fit into God's plan somewhere before the part about computers. I've heard a lot of opposing things about how dinosaurs fit into history, but I'm not an archaeologist, so I can't declare which ideas are true.

[Etienne]

It seems like dinosaurs probably lived on the planet a while ago. I imagine that dinosaurs fit into God's plan somewhere before the part about computers. I've heard a lot of opposing things about how dinosaurs fit into history, but I'm not an archaeologist, so I can't declare which ideas are true.

Huh? What do you mean "it seems like dinosaurs probably lived"... and what do you mean by the "different things about how dinosaurs fit into history"?

[ampoule]

Curious: what do Christian's think about dinosaurs? Especially those who don't believe in evolution... where do dinosaurs fit in with God's benevolent and almighty scheme?

Chuckle, chuckle.


Well, Morten, you are much more intelligent than me. I am a Christian and gosh, I don't know because I don't know how to think for myself. LOL I teach a unit on dinosaurs every January and haven't gotten kicked out of the church yet. The people who wrote the bible didn't even know the earth was round so how would they know anything about dinosaurs? Maybe, just maybe, dinosaurs have absolutely nothing to do with God's benevolent and almighty scheme.
Some 'thinking men', scholars and such, fuss a lot about this scripture from Job, chapter 40, verses 15 through 24. Whether you, excuse me, anyone, believes it or not, I think it is beautifully written. And, by the way, it was written quite awhile before those Christians came into being.

"Look at the Behemoth which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword. The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby. Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh. The lotuses conceal him in their shadow; the poplars by the stream surround him. When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth. Can anyone capture him by the eyes, or trap him and pierce his nose?"
Hmmm...maybe this is the introduction to body piercings. LOL

Even though dinosaurs were not around at the same time as man or all the other animals, it sounds to me like a Brontosaurus...ooops, they've changed that to Apatosaurus now. Or, wow, maybe it was the Noah of dinosaurs.

[hellsapoppin]

Curious: what do Christian's think about dinosaurs? Especially those who don't believe in evolution... where do dinosaurs fit in with God's benevolent and almighty scheme?

Chuckle, chuckle.


Professing Christians continue to defy science as well as logic and common sense by insisting that the world is only 6,000 years old. This despite the fact that the Bible does not actually indicate that at all.

While biblical historians date Adam's approximate birth to 4,000 BCE, they fail to note that the Bible clearly indicates there were ''generations'' of plant, animal, and yes, even human life before Adam was created: Genesis 2:4. No specific time frame is indicated which means that tens of thousands of generations or miilons of years could have gone by before Adam was created.

Therefore, contrary to certain beliefs held by fundamentalists, the Bible's teaching is not inconpatible with the existence of dinosaurs or other pre-historic life forms.

[Aluno49]

I am a professing Christian, and also a professional geologist for 35 years. I do not hold that the "world is only 6,000 years old" or any such thing. The notion that Christians know nothing about (or simply reject) science, that we cannot read with discernment and imagination, and/or that we are a homogeneous group of pre-modern know-nothings is incorrect and extremely unhelpful.

Aluno

[dzebra]

Huh? What do you mean "it seems like dinosaurs probably lived"... and what do you mean by the "different things about how dinosaurs fit into history"?

I don't know how to more clearly say that it seems like dinosaurs lived. The other part, though, I can restate more clearly (though my initial post was intended to be vague sort of in reference to the idea that the OP was vague).

Different scientists have different theories about when dinosaurs lived and when they died and what they did while they were around. Since not all of those theories are compatible, at least some of them are wrong.

[hellsapoppin]

``we are a homogeneous group of pre-modern know-nothings is incorrect and extremely unhelpful.``


Hopefully, you did note that I mentioned fundamentalists and not all Christians.

[Etienne]

Different scientists have different theories about when dinosaurs lived and when they died and what they did while they were around. Since not all of those theories are compatible, at least some of them are wrong.

When dinosaurs lived is not at all a subject of debate, data is quite precise. What they did when they were around... huh? Again what do you mean by that? As to how they died, I haven't followed the last progresses of paleontology but I know a few years ago there were 2 or 3 big theories.

And dinosaurs don't "fit" in history, they are part of history.

[dzebra]

When dinosaurs lived is not at all a subject of debate, data is quite precise. What they did when they were around... huh? Again what do you mean by that? As to how they died, I haven't followed the last progresses of paleontology but I know a few years ago there were 2 or 3 big theories.

And dinosaurs don't "fit" in history, they are part of history.

The dating methods, last time I was informed, were not as reliable as you seem to think they are.

I have spoken to a scientist who was studying dating methods, and he told me something interesting. Scientists have reputations to uphold. They hate being proven wrong just as much as anybody. In some instances, when evidence is found that suggests something other than what some popular scientists have said is true, the first people who get their hands on it will grab it and "test" it, then change the facts so that it sounds like it supports what they have already said.

For instance, he spoke of a bone that was found, and initial on-site tests were done that gave evidence that some suggested dates were off, and the item was taken by a leading scientist in the field for further testing. When other people asked for a sample so they could do their own testing, they received a sample, but it was not enough to actually run the test (a leading scientist would know what to give people in order to perform tests). The guy who had the item then put out an article saying the initial on-site tests were wrong, and that after further testing was done, it agreed with what he had already proposed.

Of course there's no way to prove any of that, but it sure sounds fishy. From my understanding, that sort of thing happens much more often than people will admit. Sometimes we forget that researchers are human and have their own agendas and reputations to uphold. Humans, even smart ones, are capable of twisting the truth to make themselves look good.

And the comment about dinosaurs "fitting" into history is just a complaint about semantics, because in order for dinosaurs to be in history, they must fit there (like a puzzle) (the story of history is like a puzzle in that there's a bunch of stuff that happened, and it all fits together perfectly).

[Etienne]

Ever heard of rock stratas or Carbon-14? That's rather precise. Give me some source to prove me there is indeed a big error margin.

Scientists conspiracy haha, that sounds like creationist propaganda to me. If scientist X can prove that what scientist Y had found and everyone believed was true, is in fact wrong, it is all in his interest to show it. The scientific world is not a giant cartel, it is a myriad of individuals peer-reviewing each other and striving to make discoveries (and a falsification is a discovery).

If a discovery like you mentioned doesn't stand to peer-review it is not regarded highly at all, as any discovery has to stand a pretty sharp peer-review before being regarded as a viable theory or as "knowledge".

[JCamilo]

This scientist who told this story must pratice some very unique science. Perhaps alchemy or astrology ^^

Just imagine the following:
The Dates of Dinossaur period are not a recent proposal, they are here for decades. The so called Leading Scientists are now quite dead to keep such lie living for long and protect their reputation.
Most scientists get money (from governament, universities, etc) and to keep their money they must generated discoveries. While it is possible a fraud - as there is some in the past - others scientists will want their share of the pie as well and they would expose as easily such mistakes because that is how they will get their own money for their own researches.
Those results are not only old but world-wide. Scientists in China achive similar results as american scientists. I somehow doubt Chinese scientists would support a lie just to preserve some american scientist.
Scientists may not like to be proven wrong but they are also (your little theory would also suggest all community of scientist is immoral) not very found to be tricked by other people. And much less by a scientific information since using the wrong information may destroy their entire work.
A single sample do not determinated the period of dinos. It may only determinated the period of that particular specieis. Mistakes have happened? Yes, but they are correct by the same scientific research and leading methology. However those mistakes have cause little or no modification about the period of dinossaurs, since it is a estimative using the results of 200 years of fossiles studies. Not just one. (Plus, an aberration like finding a T.Rex living 10000 years ago would cause such impact that no scientist would be stupid enough to publish it without testing it several times and knowing it would only be accept with a very conclusive prove. So no scientist would cheat the dates with anything that would be that abnormal).
In anyway, the caborn dating is quite effective, there is a error limit, but the scientist community do not use carbon dating from one study only, several tests are run until they have the most likely results and it shows that caborn dating error margim is very short.

[dzebra]

Like I said, I'm not a paleontologist and I've never practiced any paleontology. I also don't know any paleontologists well enough to know if I can trust their research. It does seem pretty probable that dinosaurs existed, but I'm not too worried about it, though.

[desopny]

There are some problems with carbon dating process, espeially of older samples. Check the following link for some useful information.

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm

As far as dinosaurs and the Bible, I see no problems with either. There is no commandment "Thou shalt not believe in dinosaurs." :)

[Etienne]

Carbon dating doesn't need to be pinpoint precise in the case that interests us. Also we have so many samples, that the estimate is rather precise. Same with archeology, most of the items they date, they date it because, ex: they know X Greek pot was there at X time, and they find one alike in Egypt where they don't know the period, but the correspondence between the two pots allows to settle the time period of the Egyptian discoveries.

[El Viejo]

There are at least as many varieties of Christianity as there are of dinosaurs. Some sects have denied the findings of science, others have tried to bend the findings of science to fit the text of the Bible, and vice versa. Still others have opted to see the Bible as other than precisely and literally true in every word. I've had the fortune/misfortune to have been, and to and been acquainted with, each, and to have called each fools or heretics.

When on a long trek a herd spreads out. Stragglers drop further and further behind, while others scout far ahead. This is true of animals seeking a new watering hole, and it's true of humanity in our endless march towards knowledge.

Whether the Bible is scientifically factual or not, it contains some nuggets whose worth and meaning are rarely questioned. The sermon on the mount comes to mind.

[Captainqt]

My question is this: Since Dinosaurs did exist (and I don't think that anybody here is trying to deny that), than how does that take anything away from the story of Creation? Would it not instead add to the mystery and glory of God? Not everything in the universe is so blatantly clear.

[NikolaiI]

Yes of course. :) But dinosaurs are not more difficult to understand than any of the deeper things in science. What is the call to them? They were bodied animals, like us. So we are called to them. But in a different language...I mean...look at a leaf, and in it is infinite complexity. Millions of beings and molecules. Are they less alive than dinosaurs?

[confusion]

Well said. I was going to say exactly that myself had I not found that you already said it. Another thing I'd like to add though: why do atheists think that the term "fundamentalist" applies only to religious people? When I hear the term "fundamentalist" I think of a person who has stopped wanting to listen. There are fundamentalist atheists just as there are fundamentalist Christians.

[Prole]

Another thing I'd like to add though: why do atheists think that the term "fundamentalist" applies only to religious people? When I hear the term "fundamentalist" I think of a person who has stopped wanting to listen. There are fundamentalist atheists just as there are fundamentalist Christians.
The word was originally used specificially to loosely describe a group of Christians in America, that's why. It's only recently been used to describe muslims and atheists. :)
But yeah, there are a lot of narrow minded people in the world, however skepticism can't really be called fundamentalism in my opinion.

[Niamh]

Curious: what do Christian's think about dinosaurs? Especially those who don't believe in evolution... where do dinosaurs fit in with God's benevolent and almighty scheme?

Chuckle, chuckle.
Hehe. reminds me of the Bill Hicks Dinosaurs skit.:p

I am a professing Christian, and also a professional geologist for 35 years. I do not hold that the "world is only 6,000 years old" or any such thing. The notion that Christians know nothing about (or simply reject) science, that we cannot read with discernment and imagination, and/or that we are a homogeneous group of pre-modern know-nothings is incorrect and extremely unhelpful.

Aluno

I'd be very surprised if you did hold the "6,000 years old" stuff being a geologist. You'd be contradicting yourself constantly!:p

Okay ex-Archaeologist here. Cardon dating is not acurate to the exact date but it is a give or take 50 years, so close enough! hence why many things that have been dated are "circa (c)" what ever. But some things can botch dating processes, like ash from cigarettes or if some one lit fire close by to an open excavation.
Dendrochronology is another form of dating but i think the farthest back you can go with that is 10000 years.
Geological Stratigrapy i think is the main one used for some aspects of paeleontology. most stratas represent different periods of time, and might cover a few hundred millenia. Dinosaur remains found in these different stratas can help date them. so here is a geological time scale for you all;
c4000 years ago- Bronze age
c7000 years ago- Neolithic-first farmers
c11,000 years ago- Mesolithic
?????????????????- Pleistocene
c1.6 mill years ago- Quarternary (last ice age began. Paleolithic period (early cstone age) started approx 1 million years before this date)
c66 mill years ago- Tertiary-birth of the atlantic
c144 mill years ago- Cretaceous period- first flower
c208 mill years ago- Jurassic-first birds
c245 mill years ago- Triassic-first dinosaurs
c286 mill years ago- Permian-last trilobites
c360 mill years ago- Carboniferous-coal swamps
c480 mill years ago- Devonian- First amphibians
c438 mill years ago- Silurian- first land plants
c505 mill years ago- Ordovician- first fish
c570 mil years ago- Cambrian- first shells
c4,500 mil years ago- Precambrian- first life
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So big difference between life began 6,000 years ago and c4,500 million years ago!:p

[Prole]

Okay ex-Archaeologist here.
"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." :lol:
It conjured the Hicks rant in my mind too. I'm actually going to bite my tongue on these forums as part of my new years resolution not to be so militant in my views.

[Niamh]

great skit!
Hey! Whats so funny with "ex-Archaeologist here"? :confused:

[goodmanbrown]

Interested in this myself I studied the subject. The story of God creating the earth and the cosmos in seven days is not to be taken as seven days on earth. This is cellestial / heavenly time and is to be percieved as a much, much longer time period. Also the bible says that great beasts inhabited the earth before man.

Note: this is as much an interpretation as anything else when regarding an ancient text that has been edited throughout time.

[kiki1982]

Well, being a (liberal) christian myself, I don't see what the discussion would be about... I asked my mother once, long ago, because I was interested in dinosaurs, and I didn't see how God could create the world in 7 days and how then there would have been dinosaurs before humans... :confused: Her answer was very clear and probably very accurate.
Genesis tells us:
1st day heaven and earth
2nd day light and darkness
3rd day waters and land
4th day plants
5th day animals
6th day man and woman
7th day rest

Well, animals come before humans. And is there anyone who does not agree that dinosaurs are animals??? So they come clearly before humans. Is there any specification about how long those days were?

Look at the stories in greek mythology. Do we ask whether Love gave really birth to Light and Day? We need to see the whole old testament, including creation, as Jewish/Christian/Muslim (?) mythology, not as something true. Greek mythogy is looked at neutrally because nobody believes in it anymore, wy can't we do that with the old testament or did Abraham really become 175??

[SirRaustusBear]

Metaphorical interpretations of Genisis are nothing new, and they didn't start with modern geology. St. Augustine argued in the 5th century that God couldn't have taken seven days to create the universe because a truly all-powerful God would not need time, and that the creation would have taken place all at once. He suggested that the seven day account is a way to logically organize creation.

[Granny5]

I think it's arrogant of us Christians to think that we know everything about what a "day" is to God. A God day could be thousands of years as far as we know. I am Christian, but I don't believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I'd have to be pretty silly to believe that with so much evidence that proves otherwise.

[J.D.]

This is a very sensitive subject for me. I was a Pentecostal. My Sunday school teacher gave me the devil-put-the-bones-there-to-fool-us line, and it basically launched my intellectual development. So I owe her a debt.

On the other hand . . .

Never mind. Too sensitive to get into.

[blazeofglory]

Indeed orthodoxies have always their say and adopt themselves opportunely, getting themselves conducive to a particular opinion when they realize that they can not win over the popular belief. Galileo was stake and later schools of Christianity realized that they can not win over they adopted to or agreed with this scientific notion.