Dinosaurs in the bible?
POSTED BY: midori
UPDATED: Friday, March 14, 2025 19:10
VIEWED: 14206
PAGE 2 of 7
It is only thanks to the woeful lack of education and a host of inaccuracies recycled through pop culture that such nonsensical notions of humans living along side dinosaurs is able to persist. 
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I believe in intelligent design- and I don't think evolution and ID are mutually exclusive- change in our physical nature is rampant in the bible- but I sincerely doubt a novel website is going to convince anyone, amuse maybe. If I had wanted to advertise my faith- I would have randomly quoted from the bible like this:
'But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.'
I Corinthians (ch. I, v. 27-29)
and then would have suggested skeptics to actually read the bible from Genesis to Revelations, and maybe "the faith of a Physicist" (the book that actually made me interested in reading the Bible which led to my subsequent conversion)
And then would have asked the mean people not to hate or scoff at me because of some pre-conceived or prejudiced notions about Christianity- not that I don't expect it anyway.
Love and Peace! Love and Peace! Love and Peace!
Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't hate and scoff because of pre-conceived notions about Christianity. I'm pretty catholic- I scoff at ALL religions! (I scoff at the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny too.) 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
..and then would have suggested skeptics to actually read the bible from Genesis to Revelations,...
Don't have to. The Bible is less than 2 thousand yrs old. Dinosaurs became extinct 65+ Million yrs ago.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by midori:
Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."
Of course any alleged wanna-be god is going to claim such a thing... who would follow a god that proclaimed, "I am a small part of the middle somewhere".
Here's a quote that is more in line with how I feel about all this religious clap trap:
"The most preposterous notion that Homo Sapiens have ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history."
Robert A. Heinlein
author of Stranger in a Strange Land
mattro
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
..and then would have suggested skeptics to actually read the bible from Genesis to Revelations,...
Don't have to. The Bible is less than 2 thousand yrs old. Dinosaurs became extinct 65+ Million yrs ago.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
Wait a minute, only the New Testament is less than 2,000 years old (but then it actually doesn't say much about cosmology anyway). Parts of the Hebrew bible are much older, and that's where the cosmology comes in. The first few pages of Genesis pretty much take care of it. But then if you read it carefully, you'll quickly notice that there are actually 2 separate accounts of creation in Genesis, and they don't map onto each other very well. So my question has always been, if the "answer's in Genesis", which one is it?
It takes a truly great piece of literature for the reader to find pretty much anything he/she wants in it.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
oops- see below
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm the same poster as Midori- I had to re-register for some mysterious reason- geez- I kinda feel like Firefly after it got cancelled.
Anyway,
Here is an interesting article to counter popular belief. I just ask that you read this keeping in openmind that it is always good to question what one believes.
Evaluating Evolution in Plain English
by Jason Jackson
Many people believe that the dogma of organic evolution is as firmly established as the sphericity of the earth. But is it? Jason Jackson pulls the reputed “pillars” of this theory out from under it, and the doctrine crumbles under the weight of its own ill-conceived assertions.
Little children are taught about evolution from an early age, and the media continues to propagate it unabashedly. The following quotation is typical.
“The virtually infinite variations of life are the fruit of the evolutionary process. All living creatures are related by descent from common ancestors. Humans and other mammals are descended from shrewlike creatures that lived more than 150,000,000 years ago; mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes share as ancestors aquatic worms that lived 600,000,000 years ago; all plants and animals are derived from bacteria-like microorganisms that originated more than 3,000,000,000 years ago. Biological evolution is a process of descent with modification. Lineages of organisms change through generations; diversity arises because the lineages that descend from common ancestors diverge through time” (“Evolution,” Britannica 2003 Deluxe Edition CD-ROM).
“Educated people” believe in evolution, we’re reminded, and nearly all “serious scientists” accept it as well. Generalizations of these kinds may intimidate many, but many others are not swayed by such propaganda.
In scrutinizing evolution, we will briefly survey five pillars that allegedly support the theory of natural origins. The five pillars are: spontaneous generation, mutations, natural selection, fossils, and time.
Spontaneous Generation
Spontaneous generation is the belief that life came from the nonliving. It just happened. Where did the nonliving matter come from? We’re not told. Just accept the fact that matter was there, and then life happened. That is where the evolutionist wants to begin – life just magically appeared, and then it evolved.
Wait just a minute! Is this really scientific? What evidence is there that life just happened? Robert Jastrow, renowned astronomer and evolutionist, wrote:
“Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited: either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief” (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Norton, 1977, p. 62-63).
Without “concrete evidence,” yet they believe it anyway, and represent it as a “fact of science.” They have “refused to have God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28), so they accept what to them is more palatable – something came from nothing; there is nothing to support that idea.
Mutations
Mutations supposedly provide “the raw material for evolution,” according to one prominent spokesman for evolution, Sir Julian Huxley (Evolution in Action as quoted by Marshall and Sandra Hall in The Truth: God or Evolution?, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974, p. 23). A mutation is a scrambled genetic code, accounting for a variation in a living organism.
After decades of research, there is one conclusion about mutations that is indisputable – you don’t want one!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It is only thanks to the woeful lack of education and a host of inaccuracies recycled through pop culture that such nonsensical notions of humans living along side dinosaurs is able to persist.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
Hello,
I have always been a fan of crypto-zoology. It's essentially the study and pursuit of 'legendary', 'mythological', 'rumored' or 'extinct' creatures that have not been proven to exist in our world by science.
The premise of crypto-zoology is two-fold.
One - We don't know everything yet, and can therefore be wrong in our assumptions. (This is a mighty handy premise to any science or scientific endeavor. If the whole of humanity could remember this one premise, they'd be a lot wiser.)
Two - Witness accounts of unknown creatures should not be dismissed out of hand, but rather investigated and judged according to their merits.
Crypto-Zoology brings us such creatures as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and the Abominable Snowman.
People love to scoff at crypto-zoologists because of their outlandish theories that creatures may exist despite lack of proof. Crypto-zoologists can be mocked in much the same way as UFO-ologists or anyone who believes they've been abducted by flying saucers.
However, unlike flying saucers, certain 'rumored' or 'extinct' creatures, once considered myth, have been found to be real!
One commonly overlooked example is the gorilla. New species and varieties of gorilla have been popping up occasionally over the past hundred years. Here is a recent bbc article about one of them: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3730574.stm
The Giant Squid is another example of a 'rumored' or 'mythological' creature found to be real: http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/squid.htm
There was recently (in the 1930's) discovered a species of fish in a body of water. These fish were believed to have been extinct for millions of years, but there they were, a living fossil: http://www.extinctanimal.com/the_coelacanth.htm
So, to scoff at people who believe that humans and dinosaurs may have lived at the same time, is to forget that occasionally, we are surprised by our ignorance. Certainly, there is no evidence that vast dinosaur populations roamed the earth at the same time as humans… but it is not outlandish to suggest that a few groups of 'extinct' creatures may have survived to perplex and frighten early man.
The Bible, incidentally, never speaks of a crypto-zoological creature more clearly, and with more detail, than is done in Job. Here is God, rattling off a list of real world creatures and creations… and he throws in some kind of sea-dwelling dragon. At the very least, Job himself was supposed to be familiar with this creature. It suggests that, at the time that the story was first told, humans believed that such creatures existed. That's not proof of their existence. It's just another clue that bears keeping in mind.
We just might not know everything yet.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Emma, spinland, and NOB: after reading the last couple of long posts, I must really beg you to finish the joke. This thread (and all its rational readers) desperately need some comic relief! Perhaps Chrisisall could stick another 10 cents worth or so (never only 2!) of his wit into the fray. Inquiring minds have been numbed and require help, before they tear their hair out in anguish.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME