Why did God create dinosaurs

[Astrochemist]

Is our God the sort of deity who would resort to genetic magic tricks to make it appear that we had had multiple ancestors, even though we actually did not have such ancestors? Perhaps. Or perhaps not.

Is our God the sort of deity who would resort to cellular magic to restore a dead man to life, while making it appear that such restoration is physically impossible? There is, after all, no scientific evidence that people can be resurrected, no prediction afforded by an hypothesis of resurrecting people, and much evidence (considering cellular biology, not to mention physics) that resurrection is scientifically impossible.

Is a bodily resurrection the sign of a deceitful God, and shall we then accept that the resurrection is metaphorical, in order to save God such a label?

Miracles are precisely for special cases (like a couple of humans), not for the entirety of the natural order (else the acts in question would not be miracles).

I accept that no genetic evidence is found for such an ancestor among humans because God performed a miracle. There is other evidence for this miracle, namely there being no naturalistic explanation (at least none that I find satisfying) for our sense of justice or our joy of music. If these cannot be found within the genes, then I wouldn’t imagine Adam and Eve would be able to be located there, either.

After all, what genetic feature would we seek in order to establish that demarcation between hominid animals and human persons? What is the genetic signature for the human soul?

(edited to add: If, however, strong positive evidence were discovered for there being many human ancestors, for the population always having been in the thousands, and if the Magisterium presents solutions for the serious theological problems this situation would afford, I would accept this outright. Otherwise, if there were strong positive evidence discovered for the population always having been in the thousands, and if the theological problems had not yet been resolved within the Magisterium, the humble dissent I would offer would be simply the statement: “Science seems to show that the Ordinary Magisterial teaching is wrong in this case.” It may be, though, that the Church has taught infallibly that Adam and Eve were real persons. If this is so, then to accept that there were never less than thousands of humans, I would also have to reject the Catholic Church. If this is the case, then I would hold it to be impossible that such strong evidence will ever be discovered.)

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis 37).

 

[Astrochemist]

Astrochemist, if we insist that all humans are descended solely from Adam and Eve, we must also recognize that God created the human genome with the appearance of Adam and Eve not being our sole ancestors.

This is unnecessary. One need only accept that there is an aspect of what it is to be human that is not reflected in human genetics.

There is much evidence for the Most Recent Common Ancestor (or ancestors; timing would be everything, in this case) (MRCA) living at a time on the order of 5000 BC. God would then ensoul this MRCA or couple of MRCA’s.

The rest of the hominids, genetically identical to humans but without any spiritual soul, would not connect with this line at any point, save indirectly.

 

[grannymh]

I’m genuinely trying to understand your claim that you respect science while at the same time you insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:26-27.

StAnastasia

In compliance with the ban in this forum which limits my response to science in general, I will answer accordingly.

I follow the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding Genesis 1: 26-27 and 28. I am well aware that there are many catholic theologians who do not accept Catholic doctrine regarding the reality of Adam and Eve. Because I also follow Catholic doctrine regarding human nature which includes the soul with its powers of intellect and will, it is very easy to understand why some catholics respect science over the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Are Catholics becoming closet doubters?

In order to get along in a scientific environment?
In order to retain their educated status?
In order to slide through life since sin can’t be all that important if the first sin is attributed to some kind of fictional character?

Why all the ink about God creating dinosaurs?

In order to get along with the American humanists?
In order to to accept materialistic philosophy, the basis of current science?
In order to slide in the idea that Adam should be taken as figurative for some [not specified] theological truth?

Blessings,
granny

For those interested in actual Catholic teaching, use this handy link to the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[grannymh]

Is our God the sort of deity who would resort to genetic magic tricks to make it appear that we had had multiple ancestors, even though we actually did not have such ancestors? Perhaps. Or perhaps not.

StAnastasia

The God Who is referred to in Catholic teaching is God Who is powerful enough to give His blessing to the two sole parents of the human species. In plain English, the God Who is referred to in Catholic teaching is the real God Who does not need any kind of magic tricks in order to bless Adam and Eve by saying: “Be fertile and multiply;”

Speaking of interesting research, try reading methods and materials in actual
papers from an analytical point of view. Personally, I have found these sections full
of fascinating assumptions.

Blessings
granny

Adam and Eve are real by the grace of the True God.

 

[Memaw]

I believe the thread’s author might be referring to Job 40:15-24. Could be wrong, though.

I think God created dinosaurs for the same reason he created all the other animals - for mankind to have dominion over them (Genesis 1:26). And this purpose remains today.

I don’t think mankind ever had dominion over the dinosaurs, guess God didn’t want him to either! Can’t imagine he ever wanted to have, but let’s all ask God when we get to heaven . God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

In compliance with the ban in this forum which limits my response to science in general, I will answer accordingly.

I follow the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding Genesis 1: 26-27 and 28. I am well aware that there are many catholic theologians who do not accept Catholic doctrine regarding the reality of Adam and Eve. Because I also follow Catholic doctrine regarding human nature which includes the soul with its powers of intellect and will, it is very easy to understand why some catholics respect science over the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Are Catholics becoming closet doubters?

In order to get along in a scientific environment?
In order to retain their educated status?
In order to slide through life since sin can’t be all that important if the first sin is attributed to some kind of fictional character?

Why all the ink about God creating dinosaurs?

In order to get along with the American humanists?
In order to to accept materialistic philosophy, the basis of current science?
In order to slide in the idea that Adam should be taken as figurative for some [not specified] theological truth?

Blessings,
granny

For those interested in actual Catholic teaching, use this handy link to the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

AMEN, God Bless, Memaw

 

[StAnastasia]

This is unnecessary. One need only accept that there is an aspect of what it is to be human that is not reflected in human genetics. There is much evidence for the Most Recent Common Ancestor (or ancestors; timing would be everything, in this case) (MRCA) living at a time on the order of 5000 BC. God would then ensoul this MRCA or couple of MRCA’s.

Astrochemist, in keeping with the CAF ban on discussing scientific questions, let me affirm that there certainly are aspects of what it means to be human that fall outside the purview of science.

I am not sure what you mean by MRCA; that has meaning only in reference to two lineal descents, and you don’t specify about which lines you are thinking. What MRCA falling at 5000 BCE do you mean? What is your evidence for this claimed MRCA?

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

The God Who is referred to in Catholic teaching is God Who is powerful enough to give His blessing to the two sole parents of the human species. In plain English, the God Who is referred to in Catholic teaching is the real God Who does not need any kind of magic tricks in order to bless Adam and Eve by saying: “Be fertile and multiply;” .

Granny, you are quite right that God is powerful enough to do what God wants. In that case, we can conclude that God gave “His blessing to the two sole parents of the human species” who only appear to be descendants of a long hominid line. In other words, while genetics tells us that the number of human ancestors never fell below 3,000 - 10,000 breeding pairs, we can set aside genetics as meaningless. Perhaps Catholics can live with this, although I suspect geneticists will not be happy with this compromise.

StAnastasia

 

[hugh_miller]

In compliance with the ban in this forum which limits my response to science in general, I will answer accordingly.

I follow the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding Genesis 1: 26-27 and 28. I am well aware that there are many catholic theologians who do not accept Catholic doctrine regarding the reality of Adam and Eve. Because I also follow Catholic doctrine regarding human nature which includes the soul with its powers of intellect and will, it is very easy to understand why some catholics respect science over the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Are Catholics becoming closet doubters?

In order to get along in a scientific environment?
In order to retain their educated status?
In order to slide through life since sin can’t be all that important if the first sin is attributed to some kind of fictional character?

Why all the ink about God creating dinosaurs?

In order to get along with the American humanists?
In order to to accept materialistic philosophy, the basis of current science?
In order to slide in the idea that Adam should be taken as figurative for some [not specified] theological truth?

Blessings,
granny

For those interested in actual Catholic teaching, use this handy link to the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *[www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm)

Very interesting questions posed by Grannymh. Several could make future topics. I went to the above web site and found these commentaries when I searched for Adam.
Thanks for the link.

**IN BRIEF **
413 “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (*Wis *1:13; 2:24).
414 Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God.
415 “Although set by God in a state of rectitude man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. He lifted himself up against God, and sought to attain his goal apart from him” (GS 13 § 1).
416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.
417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.
418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).
419 “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . ‘proper to each’” (Paul VI, CPG § 16).
420 The victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than those which sin had taken from us: “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (*Rom *5:20). 421 Christians believe that “the world has been established and kept in being by the Creator’s love; has fallen into slavery to sin but has been set free by Christ, crucified and risen to break the power of the evil one. . .” (GS 2 § 2).

**IN BRIEF **
413 “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (*Wis *1:13; 2:24).
414 Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God.
415 “Although set by God in a state of rectitude man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. He lifted himself up against God, and sought to attain his goal apart from him” (GS 13 § 1).
416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.
417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.
418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).
419 “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . ‘proper to each’” (Paul VI, CPG § 16).
420 The victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than those which sin had taken from us: “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (*Rom *5:20).

 

[Memaw]

For starters, weren’t dinosaurs generally BIGGER!? At the very least they were bigger than most land animals we have now. Also, I doubt spears and stones would’ve cut it to take one out.

You know when I think about it. Other than the footprints, there really hasn’t been any other evidence of man interacting with dinos. You certainly don’t see cave paintings of them do you? (And no, depictions of mythological monsters don’t count cuz such creatures were said to have been capable of more things that are too impossible for any real animal).

What were the weapons used by your so-called dino people? Are there any traces of them left? How come we don’t see dinosaur skulls being used in the same manner that ancient man used the tusks of mammoths. I’m pretty sure the head of a Triceratops would’ve made an excellent battering ram.

Or soup bowl to cook the rest of him in, Memaw

 

[hugh_miller]

Granny, you are quite right that God is powerful enough to do what God wants. In that case, we can conclude that God gave “His blessing to the two sole parents of the human species” who only appear to be descendants of a long hominid line. In other words, while genetics tells us that the number of human ancestors never fell below 3,000 - 10,000 breeding pairs, we can set aside genetics as meaningless. Perhaps Catholics can live with this, although I suspect geneticists will not be happy with this compromise.

StAnastasia

There may not be a need for compromise. I know personally a number of Geneticists, geologists, sedimentologists, physicists, paleontologists, fellow chemists that would love to see what would happen when C-14 dating would be used on all fossils including the hominids.

For instance: Perhaps the alleged hominid line are really extinct creatures or apelike critters that “allegedly” go back 7 million years [Smithsonian Magazine March 2010] and are NOT our ancestors. Maybe if these researchers from England, Kenya to the USA would C-14 date the bone collagen from a few of the bone fragments or the calcium carbonate fraction of bone bioapatite they might find that these critters are contemporaneous with Adam and Eve our historical first parents, dinosaurs, mammoths, giant bison, giant sloths, Neanderthals, diamonds etc. due to His one time creative act.

There is an excellent Accelerated Mass Spectrometer C-14 lab at Oxford in England, and many countries in Europe like France, Germany and Finland and even Peijing and Shanghai China and many more in the USA. All it takes is one mg of carbon to test for the presence of C-14 and calculate a radiocarbon age from laboratory calilbrated charts for these alleged ancestors. And gosh it only cost ~ $550 per sample just to find out if there is any C-14 present. What are they afraid of?

Experimental research in both field and lab is lots of fun for everyone. God created dinosaurs to confound the scoffers of His word as well as many other good reasons.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Because if He did not Paleontologists would have a very easy borning job.

 

[Schn]

This is unnecessary. One need only accept that there is an aspect of what it is to be human that is not reflected in human genetics.

There is much evidence for the Most Recent Common Ancestor (or ancestors; timing would be everything, in this case) (MRCA) living at a time on the order of 5000 BC. God would then ensoul this MRCA or couple of MRCA’s.

The rest of the hominids, genetically identical to humans but without any spiritual soul, would not connect with this line at any point, save indirectly.

Doesn’t work unless a soul is a binary value that is either there or not based on at least one of your parents having one. Most Recent Common Ancestor doesn’t mean all our DNA and heredity comes from them, it just means that every one has a part of their DNA. There may be contemporaries of the MRCA which only have their DNA in a portion of the population. I suppose this portion would have diluted souls, and become scientists.

 

[Memaw]

Doesn’t work unless a soul is a binary value that is either there or not based on at least one of your parents having one. Most Recent Common Ancestor doesn’t mean all our DNA and heredity comes from them, it just means that every one has a part of their DNA. There may be contemporaries of the MRCA which only have their DNA in a portion of the population. I suppose this portion would have diluted souls, and become scientists.

NO such thing as a diluted soul, maybe a diluted mind but not a diluted soul. Even scientists have a whole one all their own. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Garland]

Hi all, wow all this thread is amazing to a simpleton like me and there have been words used that simply defy the mind of the not so learned. I have enjoyed trying to keep up and have come to the conclusion that it is really much to do about nothing. I know we are created beings made in Gods image. If he chose to create through a one celled slime creature or however he did it, I am grateful. I also know that finding a tooth from a monster that died many years ago, while intresting, does not alter the fact that God created, loved, and died that I might be with him forever. At most I might live here 60 to 100 yrs, and then go the way of all living things. To base my faith on any thing other than Jesus and his sacrifice for me, is futile. If the bones of some creature are found and studied, it will change nothing important, or feed one hungry mouth, or bring comfort to a dieing person or any of the coporal works of mercy GOD HAS INSTRUCTED me to do.

 When I was protestant in the mountains of eastern Ky we sang a hymn about understanding. It went something like this.

     Tempted and tried we are oft made to wonder
      why it should be thus all the day long
      while there are others living about us
    never molested tho in the wrong
    farther along we`ll know all about it 
    farther along we`ll understand why
    cheer up dear brother, live in the sunshine   
    we`ll understand it all bye and bye

I dare say that can be applied to the dinosaurs or any other thing in life. Cheer up, live in the SON SHINE , we will understand it ALL, bye and bye.
Trust and obey for there is no other way, to be happy in Jesus, simply trust and obey. Blessings Garland

 

[StAnastasia]

All it takes is one mg of carbon to test for the presence of C-14 and calculate a radiocarbon age from laboratory calilbrated charts for these alleged ancestors. And gosh it only cost ~ $550 per sample just to find out if there is any C-14 present. What are they afraid of?

I can’t imagine anyone is afraid of testing for Carbon 14. You would have to be a conspiracy theorist to think that the 100,000 biologists in the US alone are all plotting together to pretend that the world is not 6,000 years old.

 

[StAnastasia]

To base my faith on any thing other than Jesus and his sacrifice for me, is futile. If the bones of some creature are found and studied, it will change nothing important, or feed one hungry mouth, or bring comfort to a dieing person or any of the coporal works of mercy GOD HAS INSTRUCTED me to do.

Garland, nice post. Like you, I base my faith on God, although I also have faith in people to help each other in crises like earthquakes and tsunamis. However, I don’t agree with you that science is useless or has changed nothing.

Medicine is very different now than it was in 1859 before naturalist Chles Dwin published his (forbidden on this forum) theory of evoion by natal sel**ion. I would argue that science has brought us a long way in our effort to feed the hungry (the “green revolution”) and comfort the dying (modern medicine).

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

There may be contemporaries of the MRCA which only have their DNA in a portion of the population. I suppose this portion would have diluted souls, and become scientists.

Would you argue that Archbishop Jozef Zycinski of Lublin Poland (where Pope John Paul II was) has a diluted soul? He is a scientist.

 

[StAnastasia]

Because I also follow Catholic doctrine regarding human nature which includes the soul with its powers of intellect and will, it is very easy to understand why some catholics respect science over the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Granny, could you please rephrase the above statement? I don’t follow what it is easy for you to understand.

 

[Prieldedi]

For starters, weren’t dinosaurs generally BIGGER!? At the very least they were bigger than most land animals we have now. Also, I doubt spears and stones would’ve cut it to take one out.

You know when I think about it. Other than the footprints, there really hasn’t been any other evidence of man interacting with dinos. You certainly don’t see cave paintings of them do you? (And no, depictions of mythological monsters don’t count cuz such creatures were said to have been capable of more things that are too impossible for any real animal).

What were the weapons used by your so-called dino people? Are there any traces of them left? How come we don’t see dinosaur skulls being used in the same manner that ancient man used the tusks of mammoths. I’m pretty sure the head of a Triceratops would’ve made an excellent battering ram.

I don’t know if man and dinosaurs coexisted. I’m not advocating that they did or didn’t.

geoformeo wrote “if dinosaurs and man coexisted, men would be eaten and eliminated.” I was commenting on this, and I said that if man had been exterminated by dinosaurs had they coexisted, the same thing happened to all land animals coexisting with dinos, based on what he wrote. That was my point.

On your comment about the lack of weapons: Hunters aren’t dumb. They hunt prey they can kill easily, like smaller animals. If man and dinos coexisted, why risk you life going after huge monsters supposed to be hundreds (maybe thousands?) of times more deadly than elephants?

Man invented the battering ram around 1,000 BC. Just to give you an idea how “recent” that was, the battering ram hadn’t been invented when Moses took his people out of Egypt (ca. 1500 BC).