Catholic stance on Dinosaurs

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

And I haven’t found anything Catholic related.
 
I just found out yesterday that dinosaur bones are dated using the geologic column and not carbon dating due to carbon dating being only accurate for upto 10,000 years strictly with a max of upto 50,000.

So dinosaurs are aged according to how deep they are found in the geologic column?

So if we take into account Noah’s Ark, and the heck of a flood God sent, it could have easily disrupted the Earth sending the earth into all sorts of disrupted layers. Some dinosaurs could have been buried deep below and some above.

Me finding out that no carbon dating is done, leads me to believe they are just speculating.
 
TMC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are 1000’s of other ancient sites which have similar type drawings of dinosaurs.
 
I don’t think the Catholic Church has a “position” on dinosaurs.

But I do. I’m glad they’re gone.
 
Harmony1988 said:
So if we take into account Noah’s Ark, and the heck of a flood God sent, it could have easily disrupted the Earth sending the earth into all sorts of disrupted layers. Some dinosaurs could have been buried deep below and some above.
Click to expand...
First of all, the Flood cannot account for extinct species – God, Himself took steps to save all species when he directed Noah to build the ark and take them in.
Harmony1988 said:
Me finding out that no carbon dating is done, leads me to believe they are just speculating.
Click to expand...
That’s like rejecting DNA identifications because they don’t use fingerprints.
 
Well it seems its the fundie Catholics and the fundie proddies against the world. The harm done the Church is incalculable. I cannot imagine wanting to be in such company. The very fact that a fundie would claim this illogical and ridculous assertion that man stood alongside dinosaurs aught to make any sane Catholic cringe and run the other way.

I will never understand such stubborn assertion of fiction. oh Ye of little faith who must twist and torture the facts to achieve some dreamed of world that you can feel comfortable in.
 
are you aware of dragon stories from ancient mythology? every ancient culture has dragon myths. what do those dragons look like? they look remarkably like the dinasour images that have been generated to cover the bones that have been found.

the word dinosaur was coined just over one hundred years ago, but the word dragon has been around forever…

there are many documented accounts of people encountering dragons. a roman historian relates story of how a dragon attacked an army in africa (in the truth about dragons by rhoda blumberg)

in ethiopa, dragons were called elephant killers.

time-life has a book called the enchanted world of dragons with many other examples of humans directly interacting with dragons, aka, dinosaurs.

the beowulf monster is consider to be a dragon by some.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Well it seems its the fundie Catholics and the fundie proddies against the world. The harm done the Church is incalculable. I cannot imagine wanting to be in such company. The very fact that a fundie would claim this illogical and ridculous assertion that man stood alongside dinosaurs aught to make any sane Catholic cringe and run the other way.

I will never understand such stubborn assertion of fiction. oh Ye of little faith who must twist and torture the facts to achieve some dreamed of world that you can feel comfortable in.
Click to expand...
People have got every right to make claims and then investigate and argue for them.

500 years ago, you would have been calling Galileo illogical for claiming heliocentric motion.

Be rational please.
 
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,
Click to expand...

So is the word “Assyriology” - that is not exactly evidence that Assyria was a power, let alone a major power, in the 19th century AD, when the word was coined. “Hittitology” is even more recent - it’s a designation for the study of a kingdom that collapsed in about 1200 BC​

Must Sumer be recent - instead of defunct for over 4,000 years - because the word for the study of it is 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...

This is bizarre reasoning:​

**Apatosaurus (sauropod)on Mesopotamiam Cylinder Seal (and pterosaurs?) **

The art on the left is a Mesopotamiam Cylinder Seal from approximately 3300 B.C. (Moortgart, Anton, The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia, 1969, plate 292., presumably seen by the artist. The animal on the right is an artists conception from a skeleton of an Apatasaurus. There are many striking similarities between these two animals. Those legs could not be mistaken for that of any other type of animal other than one of the saurapods.
Click to expand...
s8int.com/dinolit2.html

my emphasis]

By that logic, the dragons & beasts drawn for the film of “The Lord of the Rings” must have been “seen by the artist”, or by Peter Jackson, or even by Tolkien himself. Saurians in 1950s Oxford ? Somehow, I doubt it. Saurians, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder - those animals need not be saurians (or even Sauron’s, for that matter); they can perfectly well be non-existent & geometrically pleasing animals.

YEC logic would have us treating the fantastic fauna of TLOTR as having really existed - it dissolves the difference between imagination & fact. If an historian claimed that the White House had been whitened to hide damage caused by a fire-breathing dragon, he would not have his job for long. Only in theology is the unfounded & anti-logical nonsense of YECism found tolerable 😦

Does it never occur to YECers that if that cylinder-seal & that motif were even remotely likely to be valid evidence of saurians in Mesopotamia, someone would have said so by now ? The reason that experts in the subject such as Moortgat, Collon, Frankfort, & many others have not said so, is because they know a great deal more about the area & its art than the people who brandish this picture as evidence of saurian life in Mesopotamia in 3300 BC. And that knowledge protects them against drawing daft conclusions about what the motifs on the cylinder-seals mean.

But no - as usual, people who couldn’t even spell “Mesopotamia” if their lives depended on it turn out to know more about Mesopotamian art than those who’ve spent their lives on the subject. :eek: :eek:
 
Harmony1988 said:
People have got every right to make claims and then investigate and argue for them.

500 years ago, you would have been calling Galileo illogical for claiming heliocentric motion.

Be rational please.
Click to expand...
Yep I agree, people have every right to believe in faeries and unicorns as well. However, one does not have the right to try to make claims that these far-fetched ideas have claims to truth when they are in direct opposition to all the evidence.

I’m getting a bit tired of having my Church look foolish.

They, like all small groups who decide life is more fun by making up outlandish claims about the world, should be relegated to their basement rec rooms where they belong. They are rightly laughed out of adult conversation.
 
Fundie Catholics are a American Phenomena. Fundie Proddies are everywere. Maybe some US catholics are proddies by osmosis.
 
inthecloud said:
Fundie Catholics are a American Phenomena. Fundie Proddies are everywere. Maybe some US catholics are proddies by osmosis.
Click to expand...
Indeed. For years the Vatican has shook its finger at the US for its liberalism. Much like converts who try to outCatholic Catholics,some US Catholics I think are trying to out-orthodox the Church, in some attempt to get right with the Vatican. It surely wish they would choose their issues more wisely. This one is simply silly…
 
Totally silly.
The Vatican prefers a symbolic reading of Genesis because it does not conflict with scientific evidence and some ECF gave ground for a non literal reading of Genesis, calling it a prophetic book.
But if a Catholic whats to read a literal Genesis there is no problem if he keeps the science separated.
The fundies aproach of “Creation ScienCe” in absurd. Please left Hovind and others to the Proddies. Do not make the Church look funny.
 
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...
Very nice job!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top