Catholic stance on Dinosaurs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harmony1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Harmony1988

Guest
We have on side young earth creationists arguing that dinosaurs existed 5000 - 15,000 years ago and on the other side acclaimed scientists claiming they existed ‘millions of years ago’ based on the geologic column.

What is the catholic position as to how long ago our reptilian friends existed?
 
Harmony1988 said:
We have on side young earth creationists arguing that dinosaurs existed 5000 - 15,000 years ago and on the other side acclaimed scientists claiming they existed ‘millions of years ago’ based on the geologic column.

What is the catholic position as to how long ago our reptilian friends existed?
Click to expand...
There is no Catholic position on dinosaurs.

Peace

Tim
 
The Catholic Church is not against evolution, or an “old earth”. In fact, JP2 made a statement to that effect. Perhaps someone can post it.

Dinosaurs living hundreds of millions of years ago doesn’t change or influence even one single doctrine or tradition of Catholic belief.

James Ussher was a protestant. He’s the anglican bishop who calculated that the world started on October 23, 4004 BC.
 
lol…I don’t believe the Church has an official position on dinosaurs but of course I might be wrong. For anyone to attempt the maintain the YEC is just simply wilfully mistating the truth in my opinion. Those who propose it have what I consider psychological issues that require this false stance.
 
I doubt you’ve researched this question, hence your desire to question people’s sanity. Research has shown depictions of dinosaurs contemporary with modern humans. But your mind is made up on the issue already.

God bless,
Ed
 
Ed, modern humans only date to 40,000 years ago. Are you suggesting that dinosaurs existed then?
 
The current Catholic stance is the old-earth scientific model. The 7 days in Genesis were over millions of years, each “day” was a metaphor. Dinosaurs are part of the geological record and does not conflict with anything else.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
… Those who propose it [YEC] have what I consider psychological issues that require this false stance.
Click to expand...
I am not sure how serious you are, but I can imagine a scene where Catholic men, women, and children, who stubbornly hold onto what the Church has always said (like Augustine for example), and who believe the Bible says what it plainly means, streaming into a “pyschological re-education” center.

Maybe next, those who insist that the bread turns into the body of Christ (even after science clearly demonstrates otherwise) should also go to this “re-education” center.
 
edwest2 said:
I doubt you’ve researched this question, hence your desire to question people’s sanity. Research has shown depictions of dinosaurs contemporary with modern humans. But your mind is made up on the issue already.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
What do you mean “depictions”? Can you give examples?
 
hildegaard said:
I am not sure how serious you are, but I can imagine a scene where Catholic men, women, and children, who stubbornly hold onto what the Church has always said (like Augustine for example), and who believe the Bible says what it plainly means, streaming into a “pyschological re-education” center.

Maybe next, those who insist that the bread turns into the body of Christ (even after science clearly demonstrates otherwise) should also go to this “re-education” center.
Click to expand...

There’s no comparison:​

  1. Science is not only competent to pronounce on dinosaurs - certain branches of it (such as palaeontology) would be remiss not to do so
  2. Science has no competence in matters of Eucharistic theology, because the Eucharistic conversion is not a scientific phenomenon; it is a metaphysical one
Which is why the analogy fails.

Bad science is bad theology - it gives a false account of the work of God in creation. The Church has eveything to fear from the kind of theology that distorts the sciences in the interests of faith, & nothing to fear from unrestricted, free & honest scientific enquiry. A faith that requires lies & deceit & fictions & bad exegesis of the Holy Bible is a faith with rotten foundations; it’s not faith at all, but a form of unbelief. For real faith is not afraid of scientific, or any other, research - it cannot tolerate falsehoods, but needs truth, from whatever quarter, because it trusts God to be true to Himself.

Unlike Fundamentalism.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

There’s no comparison:​

  1. Science is not only competent to pronounce on dinosaurs - certain branches of it (such as palaeontology) would be remiss not to do so
  2. Science has no competence in matters of Eucharistic theology, because the Eucharistic conversion is not a scientific phenomenon; it is a metaphysical one
Which is why the analogy fails.

Bad science is bad theology - it gives a false account of the work of God in creation. The Church has eveything to fear from the kind of theology that distorts the sciences in the interests of faith, & nothing to fear from unrestricted, free & honest scientific enquiry. A faith that requires lies & deceit & fictions & bad exegesis of the Holy Bible is a faith with rotten foundations; it’s not faith at all, but a form of unbelief. For real faith is not afraid of scientific, or any other, research - it cannot tolerate falsehoods, but needs truth, from whatever quarter, because it trusts God to be true to Himself.

Unlike Fundamentalism.
Click to expand...
An excellent point. Science and theology are each competent in their own realm. Each can have implications for the other, but each has its role. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger said in his work “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God” which was subtitled “The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution”:
The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology.
Click to expand...
 
hildegaard said:
I am not sure how serious you are, but I can imagine a scene where Catholic men, women, and children, who stubbornly hold onto what the Church has always said (like Augustine for example), and who believe the Bible says what it plainly means, streaming into a “pyschological re-education” center.

Maybe next, those who insist that the bread turns into the body of Christ (even after science clearly demonstrates otherwise) should also go to this “re-education” center.
Click to expand...
well what do you call it when people insist on not believing in things that have been proven beyond any reasonable point? There is Zero evidence of YEC, there is ample evidence of dinosaurs and they were long extinct before any human type ever walked the earth.

Why do you people insist of beating up on ECF for things they could not possibly have been aware of?

When you cling to this literalness you categorize yourself with a few fundamentalist sects against the broad array of most Christian denominations and most all the rest of the world. They arent’ belieiving in this stuff just to tee you off you know. They believe it because its obviously proven true. You have yet to prove your theory.
 
I agree with the poster about the reeducation center idea. Totalitatarian regimes do this all the time. Pol Pot, for example, simply declared it the year zero and went on to kill people who he disagreed with.

The word dinosaur is very recent, and corresponds to accounts of large reptilian animals called dragons. The recently discovered Nile Mosaic of Palestrina depicts what we today would regard as a dinosaur.

s8int.com/dinolit2.html

For those who are curious, this illustration was found in a secular, non-creationist book.

God bless,
Ed
 
All I can say is that Barney is obviously a moral relativist who advocates a permissive society,and he ought to be shunned by Catholics.
 
edwest2 said:
I agree with the poster about the reeducation center idea. Totalitatarian regimes do this all the time. Pol Pot, for example, simply declared it the year zero and went on to kill people who he disagreed with.

The word dinosaur is very recent, and corresponds to accounts of large reptilian animals called dragons. The recently discovered Nile Mosaic of Palestrina depicts what we today would regard as a dinosaur.

s8int.com/dinolit2.html

For those who are curious, this illustration was found in a secular, non-creationist book.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Great point, Ed. Here is a drawing of fairy made just last year in Canada. There must be fairies in Canada!

canadiandragon.com/gallery/drawings/fairy.jpg

Seriously, that drawing could be anything from a bad drawing of a crocodile, to a drawing made from bad description, to a fantasy or tale of some kind. It could even be a dinosaur-looking species that we don’t know about. But no matter which of those it may be, it says nothing about dinosaurs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top