Dinosaurs and the Bible

[Lost_Wanderer]

Try to not put too much stock into evolutionism.Evolutionism is an attempt by atheists to disprove the existence of God. Plain and simple.

Uh… no.

By using biological sciences atheists try to confuse believers into something that is simply not true. That God does not exist. That life can come from nonliving matter is also nonsense from evolutionism that presupposes that the life chain '‘came to life’ randomly and that God did not somehow play a part in man’s creation…

Last time I checked, the random aspect isn’t exactly within science’s jurisdiction. In my Catholic highschool, I was taught the whats and the hows of evolutionary biology. It never touched on the subject of whys (which is were an atheistic response of randomness would be warranted along with the theistic response of it being an act of God).

I would strongly suggest that wherever you Googled this from that you look at it, and take it with a grain of salt. There are many things that people try to disguise as science or teachings on life that are only selling points to pull you away from your religion, and straight toward atheistic ideologies.

Actually, saying that man lived alongside dinosaurs is a fundamentalist/literalist ideology, not an atheist one.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: the Palestrina Mosaic, that looks like a pretty good-sized rock monitor (Varanus albigularis). Their range extends all the way up to Ethiopia, so in ancient times it might have been found in the Nile area. Or it could be some extinct rock monitor cousin. Even today, they are as big as a man.

Anyway, went and looked at the full picture over on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, and the critter is clearly labeled a “krokodilopardalis”. The critter above it, which you aren’t advocating as being a real critter, is labeled a “krokodiloschersaios”. Above him, there’s some kind of kangaroo looking critter with a human face, and then there’s a giant centipede.

The whole picture is full of a mixture of fabulous beasts and real critters, which is exactly what you can expect from an ancient Greek picture of any exotic place.

 

[edwest2]

There are other good examples. Once again, the Church is no too excited about the age of the earth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Please look up “evolutionary psychology.” From that viewpoint, our brains rewired themselves, programmed themselves and then upgraded themselves. It’s all chemicals and reactions to outside stimuli.

Peace,
Ed

Would that be intelligent “outside stimuli”?

 

[buffalo]

I have a set of kitchen scales. They weigh up to 20 pounds max; they can’t weigh any larger weight. I put my kitchen scales on the floor, and stand on them. They show 20 pounds. What does that 20 pound reading mean?

1. Great! my weight loss plan is really working well.
2. I have maxed out my scales, and I actually weigh 20 pounds, or more. Probably more.

If you answered 1, then I have this guaranteed weight loss plan to sell you at a mere $499.95 (plus p&p).

C-14 dating works up to about 50,000 years on modern equipment, 30,000 on older kit. Anything beyond those limits and you are just seeing how sensitive the laboratory equipment is, and how much contamination is left over from the previous sample they measured. The creationist website you got this from was lying to you.

I notice that you are very careful not to give an actual figure for the date found. 65,000,000 / 2,000 = 32,500 years. Are you seriously trying to tell us that fossils, which even you admit are at least 32,500 years old can serve as evidence for a 6,000 year old universe? Surely you don’t think we are that stupid? It is possible that the creationist website you got this rubbish from might be that idiotic. In future, please check more carefully before posting their junk here.

rossum

What would happen if gravity value was different years ago than today? Would the scale still show the same?

 

[BluesPicker]

As an avid studier of dragons in both popular fantasy and ancient mythology, I feel I must step in.

Dragons in ancient myths have been used more to represent forces of nature than actual creatures. In the East, their snake-like form has been compared to rivers. In the middle east, creatures like Tiamat have also been used in a similarly symbolic manner.

As far as western medieval folklore is concerned, things get even more unscientific. Please know that when you’re talking about western dragons, you’re talking about a monster that could very well take out an entire U.S. army base by itself. You’re talking about a beast with scales harder than steel, highly resilient to fire, has strength to topple buildings, and a breath weapon that is just not physically and anatomically possible.

   The dragon  in Eastern Culture is different than the way the West views dragons.?   In some forms of  Eastern thought the lion, the tiger,  the garuda, and the dragon, are they not developmental stages represented in some martial arts forms? I just  watched  a show  on   YouTube:  The Tibetan Dog.    That was in anime and it was a good movie.

BP

 

[rossum]

What would happen if gravity value was different years ago than today?

We would see effects in the light from distant stars and galaxies due to the changing effects of gravity during the light’s journey to Earth. For example, gravitational redshifts would be different. No such effects have been seen.

Would the scale still show the same?

Yes. We are measuring the weight today.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

I suggest everyone read the the following and then click on his biography.

haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclusive_evidence_for_non_velocity_redshifts

Peace,
Ed

 

[Philipp]

" sigh "

The Bible is not a science book.

The Bible (Genesis) is a science book.

While physics, chemistry and archaeology are all nice and good. The question is:

Did GOD actually do anything in Genesis? You know, like Jesus raising the dead without science and technology or telling the wind and waves to be quiet and still or literally walking on water? Does God need science to perform miracles?

As far as the dinosaurs in the Bible, I think there’s enough outside evidence that (a) the rock dates are wrong, (b) uniformity as opposed to catastrophism is wrong, and (c) people just do not do independent research.

What is that in the Palestrina Mosaic:

s8int.com/dinolit2.html

Peace,
Ed

I was criticized for not mentioning the C-14 ages for dinosasur bones. I don’t why! I suggested googling dinosaur C-14 ages or earth ages - both will pop us readily. Now don’t tell me that some of you folks don’t know how to search the Internet!!!

Someone else mentioned dinosaur depictions, the web site of which is loaded with depictions by our ancestors. I think it was the one regarding the Palestrina Mosaic. I find it hard to believe that critter is anything but a sauropod and the evidence for other distinct dinosaurs soon followed.

Of course I’m biased in favor of Christ and the church fathers who were unanimous in their support of Genesis 1-11. Of course I could be wrong - the apostles could be liars: Christ was not the son of God - He did not change water into wine - He did not bring the dead to life or make the blilnd see - Perhaps He did not institute the Holy Eucharist which were taught in Catholic schools that we receive his body and blood as the second person of the Holy Trinity - and lastly we are fools to believe that He did not arise from the dead.

Well anyway here are some of the C-14 dates from tabulations entitled “C-14 dating.” You have to scroll down for the titles iln the left column and then scroll down to several sets of tabulations @ www.dinosaurc14ages.com

25,750 ± 280
23,760 ± 270
29,690 ± 90
30,640 ± 90
31,360 ± 100
31,050 + 230/-220
36,480 + 560/-530
30,890 ±200
33,830 +2910/-1960
24,340 ± 70
39,230 ± 140
30,110 ± 80
22380±800
22,990 ±130

Check the web site for other details like dinosaur and lab ID and footnotes. if that isn’t sufficient convincing then I woujld suggest that you challenge your favorite paleontologist to cross check the data - that’s the way true science works.

 

[edwest2]

I was criticized for not mentioning the C-14 ages for dinosasur bones. I don’t why! I suggested googling dinosaur C-14 ages or earth ages - both will pop us readily. Now don’t tell me that some of you folks don’t know how to search the Internet!!!

Someone else mentioned dinosaur depictions, the web site of which is loaded with depictions by our ancestors. I think it was the one regarding the Palestrina Mosaic. I find it hard to believe that critter is anything but a sauropod and the evidence for other distinct dinosaurs soon followed.

Of course I’m biased in favor of Christ and the church fathers who were unanimous in their support of Genesis 1-11. Of course I could be wrong - the apostles could be liars: Christ was not the son of God - He did not change water into wine - He did not bring the dead to life or make the blilnd see - Perhaps He did not institute the Holy Eucharist which were taught in Catholic schools that we receive his body and blood as the second person of the Holy Trinity - and lastly we are fools to believe that He did not arise from the dead.

Well anyway here are some of the C-14 dates from tabulations entitled “C-14 dating.” You have to scroll down for the titles iln the left column and then scroll down to several sets of tabulations @ www.dinosaurc14ages.com

25,750 ± 280
23,760 ± 270
29,690 ± 90
30,640 ± 90
31,360 ± 100
31,050 + 230/-220
36,480 + 560/-530
30,890 ±200
33,830 +2910/-1960
24,340 ± 70
39,230 ± 140
30,110 ± 80
22380±800
22,990 ±130

Check the web site for other details like dinosaur and lab ID and footnotes. if that isn’t sufficient convincing then I woujld suggest that you challenge your favorite paleontologist to cross check the data - that’s the way true science works.

Thank you for that. My issue boils down to this, and please pardon the hyperbole:

“We insist that it happened as science tells us today. It’s completely carved in stone in a monument ten times the size of the pyramid of Giza - barring a minor adjustment here or there.”

I do not say the following in an accusatory tone but in a descriptive one: Why all the Secular Fundamentalism on this board? Why all the evangelization for scientific truths in these areas? It’s as if God is being replaced by another supreme being - The Scientist.

And finally, if Creationists are lying, what are they getting out of it? For the record, I do not belong to nor am I in support of any particular Creationist group or website.

Thank you for indulging me,
Ed

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The dragon in Eastern Culture is different than the way the West views dragons.? In some forms of Eastern thought the lion, the tiger, the garuda, and the dragon, are they not developmental stages represented in some martial arts forms? I just watched a show on YouTube: The Tibetan Dog. That was in anime and it was a good movie.

Yes, that’s actually common knowledge. However, both still represent ideals more than they’ll ever stand for living creatures. Much of Western medieval mythology is also influenced by those of the past (e.g. Ring of the Nibelung).

 

[Philipp]

Yes, that’s actually common knowledge. However, both still represent ideals more than they’ll ever stand for living creatures. Much of Western medieval mythology is also influenced by those of the past (e.g. Ring of the Nibelung).

Question 1: What do the radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones suggest to you?

Question 2: Why are there are distinct dinosaur and flying reptile depictions on everything from canyon walls to mosaics to burial stones to clay figurines from England, Ireland, France, Poland, Italy, Syria, Israel, Africa, South America, Mexico, North America, Cambodia, China etc? These depictions are in books and on the Internet and even reports of live dinosaurs recorded by missionaries during their time period.

Question 3: Is it possible for you to see that my bias towards the accuracy of our church fathers might be slightly more reliable than is your skepticism towards the above data?,

Another example from “footprnt section” of www.dinosaurc14ages > Fossil human footprints with and in the absence of dinosaur footprints in Texas have been confirmed by CT scans in the last few years and dozens have been excavated in the presence of many witnesses UNDER tons of Cretaceous rocks. They are NOT carved by Indians or by farmers during the depression. Who are more reliable witnesses: Those who sit behind their computers or even walk up and down rivers in Texas and say “I’ve been there and have never seen human footprints with dinosaurs” OR they who have wiltnessed the excavations and discoveries? The computer geeks rant and rave against anyone who should dare try and cross check the data. That ain’t science that’s a form of censorship which is prevalent in this country as no where else.

Meanwhile I shall continue to accept the instructions of the Popes like Leo XIII who wrote that …“therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the scripture etc.” Pope Pius XII said to study both sides of scientific questions that seem to challenge scripture. That’s why I choose to present data that is in favor of dinosaurs and man being created at the beginning as He said they were in Genesis. I do this to counteract those who would purposely mislead or who do so out of ignorance and mislead us and our kids and grandkids towards disbelief in Genesis 1-11 and therefore other historical events in scripture. Keep the faith!

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Question 1: What do the radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones suggest to you?

I’m not scientist but I am a man of mythology and I say, if you’re even suggesting that the beasts of myth were real, you’ll need more than questions on carbon dating.

You might as well ask why we don’t have Dr. Strange.

Question 2: Why are there are distinct dinosaur and flying reptile depictions on everything from canyon walls to mosaics to burial stones to clay figurines from England, Ireland, France, Poland, Italy, Syria, Israel, Africa, South America, Mexico, North America, Cambodia, China etc? These depictions are in books and on the Internet and even reports of live dinosaurs recorded by missionaries during their time period.

Because they’re myths. What, just because my ancient ancestors wrote stories and painted pictures of the bacunawa, it means there really was a giant dragon-serpent devouring the moon all the time?

Question 3: Is it possible for you to see that my bias towards the accuracy of our church fathers might be slightly more reliable than is your skepticism towards the above data?,

Reliable? Go read an actual fairy tale or an epic myth involving dragons. People believed in giants and ogres during those time periods too you know. Throw in fairies, wizards, and elves then it makes me wonder why I’m stuck in a day job and not gallivanting across the world as a spellcasting bounty hunter.

The way I see it, carbon dating is the only thing you’re hanging on to but if you so much as suggest that talks of dragons refer to dinosaurs, then you’re overestimating your little Creationist ‘expertise’. A dinosaur is nothing more than a primitive reptile. You think being eaten by a T-rex is scary? A dragon can (and in some cases, will) do far worse.

 

[rossum]

Question 1: What do the radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones suggest to you?

That the equipment in the lab used was sensitive to about 30,000 years bp and was maxed out by the old bones. Remember my analogy of the 20 pound kitchen scales.

For a good explanation of radiometric dating see Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.

Question 2: Why are there are distinct dinosaur and flying reptile depictions on everything from canyon walls to mosaics to burial stones to clay figurines from England, Ireland, France, Poland, Italy, Syria, Israel, Africa, South America, Mexico, North America, Cambodia, China etc? These depictions are in books and on the Internet and even reports of live dinosaurs recorded by missionaries during their time period.

Some are fakes, like the Ica stones. Some are misidentifications, like the Cambodian “Stegosaurus”. Some may be the result of finding actual fossils, like Rocs or the Thunderbird. Some are pure imagination. We can see lots of pictures of unicorns as well as of dragons. Remember also, that no dinosaur had six limbs, like a dragon. Anyone who actually saw a dinosaur would not give it six limbs.

Question 3: Is it possible for you to see that my bias towards the accuracy of our church fathers might be slightly more reliable than is your skepticism towards the above data?

If your data is of the quality of the Ica stones, then we are correct to be very sceptical about it. Modern scientists have access to many more fossils, and to DNA sequencing techniques, that were not available to the Church Fathers. Here is Saint Augustine, speaking on the possibility of people living in Australia (the Antipodes):

“As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets on us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing it. Those who affirm it do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man.”

Augustine (De Civitate Dei, xvi, 9)

Do you think that this eminent Church Father is “more reliable” than our current data about people living in Australia?

rossum

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Remember also, that no dinosaur had six limbs, like a dragon. Anyone who actually saw a dinosaur would not give it six limbs.

Or wings

Or fire/poison/lightning breath

Or multiple heads

Or organs and blood with magical properties

Or power over the weather

 

[Philipp]

I’m not scientist but I am a man of mythology and I say, if you’re even suggesting that the beasts of myth were real, you’ll need more than questions on carbon dating.

Philipp: I would think that men of science using a well known and well studied reproducible methodology that obtains acceptable and testable C-14 data would trump a man of mythology but apparently not so in this day and age.

You might as well ask why we don’t have Dr. Strange.

Philipp: We do have Dr. Strange - Just look at the theory of our origins that is taught in all our schools > all species have developed over billions of years out of star dust and rocks and then the mythological speculation really begins as what came from what. I read it all the time in newspaper columns written by University profs.

Because they’re myths. What, just because my ancient ancestors wrote stories and painted pictures of the bacunawa, it means there really was a giant dragon-serpent devouring the moon all the time?

Philipp: Uhm! Or a bacunawa “dog” that eats rocks? Really that’s not the type of
depictions I was refering to: Have you ever heard of the word “distinct?” The dragons I’m refering to are very similar to dinosaur drawings of modern day Paleontologists. Since you claim to be a man of mythology you must try relaxing with a good book with a lot of distinct reptiles entitled, “Dire Dragons” - go search the Internet. The word dinosaurs didn’t pop up until 1841 and named by Richard Owen. I’m particulalry intrigued with Francois I of France who built a couple of chateaus in the 16th century, one with over 800 distinct “dragons” sculptured into the walls, ceilings and fire places. They have scales, claws, long tails and long necks - hardly salamanders. Francois I was also intrigued with reading books and made sure that every time a new one came out the library in Paris was required to send him a copy; he used the top artists of his day to sculpt these critters - maybe they used some from his library?

Reliable? Go read an actual fairy tale or an epic myth involving dragons. People believed in giants and ogres during those time periods too you know. Throw in fairies, wizards, and elves then it makes me wonder why I’m stuck in a day job and not gallivanting across the world as a spellcasting bounty hunter.

The way I see it, carbon dating is the only thing you’re hanging on to but if you so much as suggest that talks of dragons refer to dinosaurs, then you’re overestimating your little Creationist ‘expertise’. A dinosaur is nothing more than a primitive reptile. You think being eaten by a T-rex is scary? A dragon can (and in some cases, will) do far worse.

Philipp: And now we move on to redicule - “your little creationist expertise” - not really, I’m just a “wonderer” like you who has found the way, the truth and the light and dumped that silly mythology of star dust to rocks to fish to me half way through my life.
It’s all very simple: I was created in the image and likeness of the Creator who used the miracle of DNA to create a vast number of fascinating creatures for us to enjoy. So enjoy!
Visit an aquarium or zoo.

Philipp: I thank the “Lost Wanderer” for reminding us all that mythology is not only alive and well in our modern day society but what is taught in our public and parochial schools sure tops any of those mythological drawings and writings a few of our ancient ancestors managed to conjure up.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I would think that men of science using a well known and well studied reproducible methodology that obtains acceptable and testable C-14 data would trump a man of mythology but apparently not so in this day and age.

Irrelevant as is your insistence on the carbon dating issue. Why don’t you talk to rossum about that if that’s your only strong point against the scientists.

On the other hand, to contest how ancient peoples view and expressed their myths is in my jurisdiction so far, creationist have failed even in that subject (as you have so wonderfully demonstrated).

Uhm! Or a bacunawa “dog” that eats rocks? Really that’s not the type of
depictions I was refering to: Have you ever heard of the word “distinct?” The dragons I’m refering to are very similar to dinosaur drawings of modern day Paleontologists. Since you claim to be a man of mythology you must try relaxing with a good book with a lot of distinct reptiles entitled, “Dire Dragons” - go search the Internet.

I’m not wasting 2k pesos on a book that serves to ridicule both the fields of science and that of my own. Again, why don’t you read up on good 'ol Fafnir, Smey Gorynych, Tiamat, or even the Yamato no Orochi if you want to know what REAL dragons are capable of. And the best part of that? Resources on them are free.

I’m particulalry intrigued with Francois I of France who built a couple of chateaus in the 16th century, one with over 800 distinct “dragons” sculptured into the walls, ceilings and fire places. They have scales, claws, long tails and long necks - hardly salamanders.

Uh, it’s not just the fact that dragons have scales, claws, long tails, and long necks.

It’s the fact that their scales can’t be penetrated by steel.
Their claws can rip groups of men in two with a single swipe.
Their tails have the minimum force of a giant, wrecking ball.
Long necks are supposed to make it easier for them to snatch you and EAT you.

It’s all very simple: I was created in the image and likeness of the Creator who used the miracle of DNA to create a vast number of fascinating creatures for us to enjoy. So enjoy!

Right and they all just magically appeared one day 6000 years ago.

Visit an aquarium or zoo.

Only if they had real monsters like the gryphon, the hydra, oh and of course, a living, breathing dragon.

Then again, such beasts can never be contained. You have no idea what kind of power the dragons of myth possess.

Philipp: I thank the “Lost Wanderer” for reminding us all that mythology is not only alive and well in our modern day society but what is taught in our public and parochial schools sure tops any of those mythological drawings and writings a few of our ancient ancestors managed to conjure up.

Yet here I was, wondering why guys who took literature, mythology, and folklore as their main subjects are suffering from less profitable and less recognized career paths. So tell me, where can I find some ancient dragon blood? I hear the tale Siegfried says they make a powerful steroid.

 

[Bernadette173]

That does not make biology untrue. Atheists use passages from the Bible to argue against God, does that make the Bible untrue? Atheists use events from history to argue against God, does that make history untrue? Merely because an atheist uses something in an argument does not make that thing untrue.

Many parts of science, do make certain interpretation of the Bible untrue, but merely because one specific interpretation is incorrect does not mean all interpretations are incorrect. There are hundreds of different Protestant interpretations of the Bible out there, that are incorrect according to the Catholic Church. The existence of those incorrect interpretations does not impact on the correctness of the Catholic Church’s interpretation.

rossum

Do you believe that living things that have extremely complicated internal systems, even the most minute living creature can exist without God? You DO realize living things cannot spontaneously exist from nonliving matter, right? And that with all of the tools available to biologists today, they still have not been able to create living cells from dead cell matter, And that Science and scientism try to explain away biological processes as random, and not needing the existence of a higher power, or God.
Note, I never said that other interpretations of the Bible were untrue to those that belive them, so why you change the subject from biology to religion is beyond me.Science and biology cannot prove that God does not exist, because science and biology can only study the material universe and things that are composed of matter, from nature. Science cannot explain the supernatural, the ability to reason, or to contemplate
Evolutionism cannot explain the origin of life either. It can explain how things transform, but it is not able to answer the question of who or what made dead matter come to life? What supernatural being with infinite knowledge or power gave life to the very fist cell that came to life? Because science and evolutionism can only observe the physical world and things that are composed of matter. That is why scientism and evolutrionism do not have merit, because they cannot explain the creator of the first living thing properly.
I hope this explains something of use to you.

Bless You,.

 

[rossum]

Do you believe that living things that have extremely complicated internal systems, even the most minute living creature can exist without God?

Please look at the top right of my posts, the line where it says, “Religion:”. I am not Christian, but Buddhist. How complex is your God? What meta-God is it that performs the sustaining function for your God?

You DO realize living things cannot spontaneously exist from nonliving matter, right?

You do realise that the creationist website you got that from was lying to you? Abiogenesis research still has a long way to go, but it is making good progress. So far it has not found any insuperable obstacles.

And that with all of the tools available to biologists today, they still have not been able to create living cells from dead cell matter

Every living animal can make living cells from dead cells. You eat food, which is made from dead cells, and convert those dead cells into living cells in your own body.

I agree that no complete cell has yet been made in a text tube, but a virus has. As I said, abiogenesis research is progressing, but is not yet complete.

Evolutionism cannot explain the origin of life either. It can explain how things transform, but it is not able to answer the question of who or what made dead matter come to life?

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. Darwin’s book was called “On the Origin of Species”. It was not called “On the Origin of Life and of Species”. The study of the origin of life is called abiogenesis, and work is progressing in that area.

What supernatural being with infinite knowledge or power gave life to the very fist cell that came to life?

A supernatural being cannot explain the origin of life, if that supernatural being is itself already alive. Psalm 42:2 “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.” Your God cannot explain the origin of life, because He Himself is already alive.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

God can and does explain the origin of life, but Genesis is constantly debated here as if it were a science text. Jesus refers to the Old Testament in a factual way. He was there at he beginning, and had a truly causal role in the development of life.

In other words, science cannot explain the whole picture.

Peace,
Ed