Dinosaurs Never Existed!

[Macfistowannabe]

Don't let my tongue-in-cheek thread title throw you off.

When I was younger, I wanted to be a paleontologist so I could study dinosaur bones.

The theological question asked frequently is about dinosaurs. Likemindeds who believe that Creation has its merits may search Genesis for answers, or for evidence, of dinosaurs.

I believe there is an indeniable proof that dinosaurs exist.

So where are they found in the Bible?

The answer is that you have to think outside of the box. My belief is that dinosaurs were created on the sixth day, and before the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, all of them ate plants. As a result of the fall of mankind, several animals had to devour other animals in order to survive.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

 

[Angela Harlem]

You could think outside the box, or you could roll your own and see dinosaurs, sure.


I was obssessed with dinosaurs when I was a kid. I used to take plastic figurines to my ballet classes.

 

[macfesto]

the "Epic of Gilgamesh" will grant a new perspective on the book of Genesis...

Gilgamesh was written down on 3500 B.C.E. compared to Gensis' 1000 B.C.E. Look into it.

Dinosaurs are the shit.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Im going to be going for a masters in Palaeontology in 2008, and then after that hopefully a PhD, dinosaurs are the shit.

As for reconciling creation with basic anatomy of Dinosars it cannot be done; Therapod dinosaurs were carnivorous - we have a lot of evidence including teeth, bite marks and coprolites (fossilised feces), these animals would not have survived on plants - even before "the fall".

To reconcile bibliotheism with reality the facts must go out the window.

 

[preciousstone]

OK so who was the unknown WOMEN that Cain and Abel, the "first" sons of Adam and Eve- the ONLY people on earth, mated with to make the beginning of the world?

Answer that, will you?

 

[martha]

I saw a book for little kids at a Christian bookstore once. It had a lovely illustration of the cavemen fighting off a giant dino. It was serious.

Gotta love 'em.

 

[melon]

I believe there is an indeniable proof that dinosaurs exist.

They're called "fossils" and they're at least 65 million years old.

I'm not going to entertain the rest of this pseudoscience.

Melon

 

[melon]

OK so who was the unknown WOMEN that Cain and Abel, the "first" sons of Adam and Eve- the ONLY people on earth, mated with to make the beginning of the world?

Answer that, will you?

Not an answer that fundamentalist Christians will want to hear, but I believe that Genesis was written with a henotheistic POV, as the Israelites were one Semitic tribe of many, and each Semitic tribe had their own god that they worshipped. The Genesis creation myths were written in this fashion, and I believe that that "Garden of Eden" was perhaps a metaphor for what we presently term as "heaven." Like "heaven," the Garden of Eden would not have been present on Earth, and once they were cast out of the garden, they were then put onto a preexisting Earth with all the other tribes, created by their own respective gods. As for who created "Earth," if each tribe had been created by different gods, it was not uncommon to worship a god different from the god who created you. And, indeed, in the Semitic pantheon, "Yahweh," the thunder god, was subordinate to El, the supreme Semitic god who unified all the Semitic tribes of the Levant.

As such, Cain married a woman from a foreign tribe who exists, because she was created by a different Semitic god, according to the mindset of the times.

After being released from exile by the Persian Empire, a new sect of Jews arose that adopted a wide set of views from the state religion, Zoroastrianism. And this sect became known as the Pharisees. The latter half of the Old Testament reflects their theology, and is fully monotheistic. However, Exodus merely states to have "no other gods before me," which is not the same as "there is no such thing as other gods but me." Exodus' main contribution to early Judaism was that it establishes Yahweh as the protector god of the Israelites, and, likewise, shows the suicidal consequences of worshipping other Semitic deities, as told in the story of the Golden Calf. This was quite a departure, as archaeological evidence shows that the Israelites' neighbors were known to worship other tribes' gods, in addition to their own.

Oh yeah, and Abel didn't mate with anyone. He was killed by Cain, which is why he was cast out and married a foreigner to begin with.

Melon

 

[Liesje]

the "Epic of Gilgamesh" will grant a new perspective on the book of Genesis...

Gilgamesh was written down on 3500 B.C.E. compared to Gensis' 1000 B.C.E. Look into it.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

dinosaurs never existed... just ask carl everett

 

[AEON]

Not an answer that fundamentalist Christians will want to hear, but I believe that Genesis was written with a henotheistic POV, as the Israelites were one Semitic tribe of many, and each Semitic tribe had their own god that they worshipped. The Genesis creation myths were written in this fashion, and I believe that that "Garden of Eden" was perhaps a metaphor for what we presently term as "heaven." Like "heaven," the Garden of Eden would not have been present on Earth, and once they were cast out of the garden, they were then put onto a preexisting Earth with all the other tribes, created by their own respective gods. As for who created "Earth," if each tribe had been created by different gods, it was not uncommon to worship a god different from the god who created you. And, indeed, in the Semitic pantheon, "Yahweh," the thunder god, was subordinate to El, the supreme Semitic god who unified all the Semitic tribes of the Levant.

As such, Cain married a woman from a foreign tribe who exists, because she was created by a different Semitic god, according to the mindset of the times.

After being released from exile by the Persian Empire, a new sect of Jews arose that adopted a wide set of views from the state religion, Zoroastrianism. And this sect became known as the Pharisees. The latter half of the Old Testament reflects their theology, and is fully monotheistic. However, Exodus merely states to have "no other gods before me," which is not the same as "there is no such thing as other gods but me." Exodus' main contribution to early Judaism was that it establishes Yahweh as the protector god of the Israelites, and, likewise, shows the suicidal consequences of worshipping other Semitic deities, as told in the story of the Golden Calf. This was quite a departure, as archaeological evidence shows that the Israelites' neighbors were known to worship other tribes' gods, in addition to their own.

Oh yeah, and Abel didn't mate with anyone. He was killed by Cain, which is why he was cast out and married a foreigner to begin with.

Melon

This is a very fascinating post! I would like to look into it more.

I am probably what you would consider a "fundamentalist," but I think many Christians are way off base in the way they interpret Genesis. As Melon pointed out, there was a different mindset back then. Today, we tend to read everything as if it were a newspaper article.

To me, Genesis is important because of the themes it presents. 1) God is in charge; 2) Humans chose to live according to their own desires (instead of God's will); and 3) Righteousness comes through faith (see Abraham)

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Re: Re: Dinosaurs Never Existed!

They're called "fossils" and they're at least 65 million years old.

I'm not going to entertain the rest of this pseudoscience.

Melon

"Existed" was my intention, excuse the typo.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Not an answer that fundamentalist Christians will want to hear, but I believe that Genesis was written with a henotheistic POV, as the Israelites were one Semitic tribe of many, and each Semitic tribe had their own god that they worshipped. The Genesis creation myths were written in this fashion, and I believe that that "Garden of Eden" was perhaps a metaphor for what we presently term as "heaven." Like "heaven," the Garden of Eden would not have been present on Earth, and once they were cast out of the garden, they were then put onto a preexisting Earth with all the other tribes, created by their own respective gods. As for who created "Earth," if each tribe had been created by different gods, it was not uncommon to worship a god different from the god who created you. And, indeed, in the Semitic pantheon, "Yahweh," the thunder god, was subordinate to El, the supreme Semitic god who unified all the Semitic tribes of the Levant.

Since I'm not a "fundamentalist", I found this to be an interesting metaphor. I think Genesis can be interpreted in every which direction. I can tell you've put in quite a bit of thought and foundation into your interpretation.

 

[bono_man2002]

dinosaurs never existed... just ask carl everett

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Im going to be going for a masters in Palaeontology in 2008, and then after that hopefully a PhD, dinosaurs are the shit.

As for reconciling creation with basic anatomy of Dinosars it cannot be done; Therapod dinosaurs were carnivorous - we have a lot of evidence including teeth, bite marks and coprolites (fossilised feces), these animals would not have survived on plants - even before "the fall".

To reconcile bibliotheism with reality the facts must go out the window.

Awesome that you're pursuing palaeontology, and good luck.

But to contradict your argument, it seems that when you take the fall of mankind half-heartedly, it doesn't make sense. To put logic into perspective, The Garden of Eden had all kinds of trees that only began to wither away after mankind was cursed.

I'm not trying to thump anything. What I'm doing is giving you a perspective that makes more sense than "just believe this is true," which is what you've heard, I imagine, from someone who believes in the fall of mankind but doesn't know why they do.

 

[Liesje]

But to contradict your argument, it seems that when you take the fall of mankind half-heartedly, it doesn't make sense.

When you take it literally, it doesn't make sense.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

When you take it literally, it doesn't make sense.

Sure it does. I don't think that the Bible is supposed to be a full-blown mind game.

But Melon is right as far as the fact that there are parables found all over the place, and that many of them require a lot of searching to find out what the message is telling you.

 

[Liesje]

there are parables found all over the place, and that many of them require a lot of searching to find out what the message is telling you.

Sometimes a lot LESS searching and a lot MORE open-mindedness and letting go of bias.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Sometimes a lot LESS searching and a lot MORE open-mindedness and letting go of bias.

I could use some specific examples here in order to understand your argument.

 

[Liesje]

I could use some specific examples here in order to understand your argument.

Well, I don't want to derail this thread about dinosaurs. Just look back in any thread regarding evolution v. ID and you'll find plenty of examples. People see what they want to see, or what they were taught to see. Sometimes all we need to do is step out of our own very limited box of what we previously understood and what we were socialized to understand and things can make a lot more sense. A basic example is that gazillions of Christians fail to realize that the Genesis creation story is a narrative. They close their eyes to this obvious truth, and thus fail to understand the implications this has on theology and a Christian view of science.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Well, I don't want to derail this thread about dinosaurs. Just look back in any thread regarding evolution v. ID and you'll find plenty of examples. People see what they want to see, or what they were taught to see. Sometimes all we need to do is step out of our own very limited box of what we previously understood and what we were socialized to understand and things can make a lot more sense.

How do you know that people who don't think it makes sense aren't stuck in their own very limited box?

A basic example is that gazillions of Christians fail to realize that the Genesis creation story is a narrative. They close their eyes to this obvious truth, and thus fail to understand the implications this has on theology and a Christian view of science.

What is the obvious truth?

It seems like the obvious truth to a lot of people is reinvented and reinvented and reinvented.

 

[Liesje]

How do you know that people who don't think it makes sense aren't stuck in their own very limited box?

What is the obvious truth?

It seems like the obvious truth to a lot of people is reinvented and reinvented and reinvented.

What doesn't make sense?

Genesis is a Hebrew narrative, their creation story. The only truths it attempts to illustrate are that there is a God and He is responsible for and has authority over all of creation. These truths are played out in a series of relationships - God's relationship with humankind, humankind's relationship with each other, and humankind's relationship with God's creation.

It does not attempt to support or refute the existance of dinosaurs, evolution, how many days it took the Earth to form.....the creation narrative occurs outside of our concept of time and space.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

What doesn't make sense?

Genesis is a Hebrew narrative, their creation story. The only truths it attempts to illustrate are that there is a God and He is responsible for and has authority over all of creation. These truths are played out in a series of relationships - God's relationship with humankind, humankind's relationship with each other, and humankind's relationship with God's creation.

It does not attempt to support or refute the existance of dinosaurs, evolution, how many days it took the Earth to form.....the creation narrative occurs outside of our concept of time and space.

It seems that we don't agree on creationism itself, and that while you believe in intelligent design, you also believe in evolution.

Am I wrong?

I don't think Creation in Genesis is something that God is incapable of doing, nor do I believe that we have proven that it is a narrarative.

In case you haven't noticed, I respect the evolution by intelligent design argument, it's just that I don't agree with it.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

What doesn't make sense? .

People who don't take Creationism literally don't seem to believe that it could make sense. So they take it narraratively.

I hope that clears it up.

 

[Liesje]

People who don't take Creationism literally don't seem to believe that it could make sense. So they take it narraratively.

I don't really care how people take it, it's their faith so it's not really any of my business. However, there's a difference between "taking" something narratively and saying that to make it sound like something that is a narrative might not be a narrative. I don't care what you interpret from the narrative and where that leads as far as creationism/evolution/ID, but a narrative is a narrative. Trying to argue that Genesis is anything but severely discredits any arguement you make based on that conclusion, in my opinion. I think it's pretty rediculous you're arguing that people "believe" Genesis is a narrative because they are unable to interpret it literally.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Awesome that you're pursuing palaeontology, and good luck.

But to contradict your argument, it seems that when you take the fall of mankind half-heartedly, it doesn't make sense. To put logic into perspective, The Garden of Eden had all kinds of trees that only began to wither away after mankind was cursed.

I'm not trying to thump anything. What I'm doing is giving you a perspective that makes more sense than "just believe this is true," which is what you've heard, I imagine, from someone who believes in the fall of mankind but doesn't know why they do.

I don't take it half-heartedly, I don't accept it at all.

And if one doesn't accept that tale then the concept of original sin goes out the window and the rest of the theology unwinds - who needs a saviour when they don't need to be saved?

I have read a good deal of evidence on the subject, I have had the opportunity to get hands on with the evidence -the objectivity of science means we must try and disregard assumptions; Dinosaur fossils make perfect sense in the context of vertebrate evolution over the last 250 million years - the finds coming out of China of feathered therapods and transitional forms are the evidence of dinosaurs evolving into birds that has been expected for some time now.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It seems like the obvious truth to a lot of people is reinvented and reinvented and reinvented.

And again I reiterate that the shifts in scientific knowledge are a strenght and not a weakness - it represents the best understanding of what we know and is always open to new and contradictory discoveries; this dynamic system of knowedge is a powerful tool of investigation and it is bordering on criminal that so many young minds are cut off from it on the basis of percieved culture war and religious identity.

 

[BVS]

END PSEUDOSCIENCE

 

[INDY500]

END PSEUDOSCIENCE

Can I quote you on the next "global warming" thread?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Pseudoscience pretends to be science, special creation doesn't even reach that bar.