Why did God create dinosaurs

[Prieldedi]

And as I posted to philipp, a 2nd grader would state the obvious that if dinosaurs and man coexisted, men would be eaten and eliminated.

2nd graders are not pessimists. They believe in superheroes, they believe man is superior to dinosaurs. They know we are here, not the dinosaurs.

Man has faced bears, lions, tigers, wolves, crocodiles, hippopotamus, elephants, poisonous snakes, poisonous scorpions, constrictor snakes, whales, sharks, killer whales, and here we are. (I apologize to other predators not in my list, but you know you belong in it too). It seems dinosaurs were the only living land animals when they disappeared from the face of the Earth. By what you say, “would be eaten and eliminated”, I gather that no other land animal could have existed, I don’t see why your rule “would be eaten and eliminated” applies only to humans, I don’t see why dinosaurs would discriminate only against humans. So, if the scenario was that dinosaurs eliminated all other land animals from the face of the Earth, then the evolution re-started 65 million years ago. There were animals in the water, but land animal (the dinosaurs) were whipped out. Now, scientists say that life on Earth began 3.5 to 3.65 BILLION years ago. That means that from the beginning of life to the end of the dinosaurs took 3.43 BILLION years. Considering the initial 3.43 BILLION years, is 65 MILLION years enough time for all present living land animals to have re-evolved? Wonder what happened this 2nd time around with reptiles that dinosaurs didn’t reappear or didn’t grow as big as before, but it will be wise not to ask.

I’m afraid that is a poor analogy. The metal in both a ship and a spoon was originally mined from a rock before it was molded by a human. Hence, the rock is their common ancestor.

My analogy is good because we see the hand of a creator. The spoon didn’t evolve until becoming a ship. There is common matter in both, but man made them separately.

It’s not a convenient position, it is the only position that science holds. Ironically, it is people with your worldview (that believe that science can answer the “why” questions) that actually give credibility to the atheistic theologies of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and the like. Those who understand that science has no absolute purview in “why” questions are able to see the atheistic positions as philosophies and theological garbage.

I don’t agree it’s the “only” position. Are you saying that you, as a Catholic scientist, don’t share in the responsibility of what’s happening with the “Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet and the like”? Is it just my (our) fault only because I (we) ask “why”? How many times have we been told that the only stupid question is the one that is not asked? Now you tell me not to ask. You are the “experts” in these field, I don’t see what’s wrong in asking you “why”. In the Socratic method, a question answered opens more question. By answering the questions knowledge grows.

Should a science teacher send his students to a philosopher/theologian when they ask him, WHY does an airplane fly? WHY does a ship float?

Just because the man is inept in theology does not mean he is inept in his area of expertise.

Dawkins can’t answer HOW the last animal without eyes found out about the laws of optics, in order to make the genetic changes that resulted in the evolution of the optic system in living animals. HOW did that animal know that a big ball of fire (that we call Sun) was up there? HOW did it know that the light it emits reaches Earth? HOW did it know solid objects reflect light? HOW did it know that light reflected by solid objects could be captured to give us its form, color? HOW did it know what colors are? No matter HOW big his expertise in his field, Dawkins can’t answer these “HOW” questions. No one can. These are not theological questions, by the way.

I can guarantee you they did not identify the fossils as trilobites. Trilobites were not microscopic organisms.

Granted. But they described them as the remains of living micro organisms that came from Mars. It amazes me that you give more importance to me saying “trilobites”, than to NASA saying the rock came from Mars!

Ever heard of media bias? 300,000+ people at this year’s March for Life in DC and no secular media coverage. Common sense scientists don’t get heard because they are not controversial enough, or not in line with what the liberal, atheistic media wants them to find. Hence the complete blackout when it was revealed the molecules were not of biological origin.

Scientists aren’t afraid to use God and nature in the same sentence. We are just hesitant to credit everything unknown to His miraculous supernatural intervention.

I say this to common-sense scientists: stop hesitating and start acting. Silence is not the solution. “Political correctness” is not the answer either. The void you leave, by not wanting to credit everything unknown to God’s miraculous supernatural intervention, will be filled by others. Remember what’s been said: when the good people on Earth stops acting, evil advances.

 

[StAnastasia]

Here’s some humour injected into this thread

Bear Claw, as a theist I appreciate your posting these cartoons! I use them in my theology classes. Here’s another one:

 

[hugh_miller]

Teaching evolution as a fact in Catholic schools over millions and billions of years of death to where Adam and Eve finally evolved without a balanced instruction of what the Catholic church fathers all taught is pure unadulterated brain washing.

Regarding radioactive decay rates: They are NOT constant. Therefore the long ages for the universe and the age for the earth of 4.5 billion years and dinosaurs bones at 65 million years appear to be quite meaningless and therefore is the Hypothesis of evolution from a common ancestor starting with the stars, then to mud and rocks and perhaps to a mud “puppy” to man to fish to apelike critters appears quite preposterous and a fairy tale. As Dr. Marie Claire van Oosterwyck, a leading mineralogist in Europe and lab director in 1975 at a major University in Belgium as well as a Catholic has written : “My answer to the anomalous age ‘problem’ in radiometric dating of minerals was as follows: Radioactive elements are present within the mineral matrix itself and several conditions can influence how much radioactive material can be retained.

1. Chemical composition of the material.
2. Mineralogical composition of the mineral.
3. Crystal*** structure of the mineral.***
4. Grain size of the various crystals in the mineral (smaller grain size means there are more grain boundaries per unit volume.)
5. Exposure of mineral to high-temperature water
6. Exposure of mineral to weathering.
7. The particular radioactive isotope present in the mineral.

Thus the ‘clocks’ reputed to produce absolute ages depend upon the above factors and therefore are neither absolute nor true ages. According to textbooks on the subject the ‘clocks’ should be insensitive to such conditions but the “time” they register will change if conditions 1-7 vary.”

**COMMENT: Therefore, C-14 date the fossils where possible and NOT the minerals in order to come closer to the true age of the fossils in their matrix of rock or clay. What Madam Oosterwyck knew back in 1975 and her data ignored and her career ended, like all evolutionary believers do, new research in the past 20 years has shown that she was as correct now as she was in 1975. Moses excels while Darwin’s hypothesis declines. **

 

[grannymh]

It is my intention to comply with the temporary ban in this forum.

Thus, my reply is based on science as seen in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. It also relies on the Catholic teaching regarding soul.

By accepted definition, science is limited to the physical/material realm. When it comes to p(name removed by moderator)ointing the origin of the true fully complete human being, known as Adam, science is stopped cold. The immaterial, immortal, spiritual soul of Adam (and us) does not fit under the natural science microscope.

The basis of science is that all reality is material. Science is unable to address the uniqueness of the human species. Thus, current popular scientists chose to eliminate the spiritual uniqueness of humanity, including intellect and will.

On the other hand, Catholicism places humanity at the pinnacle of creation because human nature is an intimate union of the material body and the immaterial soul. The human person as a rational/corporeal being is peerless.

Catholicism acknowledges the contribution of “scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 282-289) But it does not change the doctrine that there are two real sole parents of the human species. real as in opposition to figurative or symbolic.

Use this handy link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

www.CatholicsComeHomeRockford.org
www.CatholicsComeHome.org

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

2nd graders are not pessimists. They believe in superheroes, they believe man is superior to dinosaurs. They know we are here, not the dinosaurs.

Man has faced bears, lions, tigers, wolves, crocodiles, hippopotamus, elephants, poisonous snakes, poisonous scorpions, constrictor snakes, whales, sharks, killer whales, and here we are. (I apologize to other predators not in my list, but you know you belong in it too). It seems dinosaurs were the only living land animals when they disappeared from the face of the Earth. By what you say, “would be eaten and eliminated”, I gather that no other land animal could have existed, I don’t see why your rule “would be eaten and eliminated” applies only to humans, I don’t see why dinosaurs would discriminate only against humans.

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.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

By accepted definition, science is limited to the physical/material realm. When it comes to p(name removed by moderator)ointing the origin of the true fully complete human being, known as Adam, science is stopped cold. The immaterial, immortal, spiritual soul of Adam (and us) does not fit under the natural science microscope.

Hello, Granny! Nice to meet you.

While I do agree that science deals exclusively in the natural world, I just want to say that so does most everything else. There’s only one exception - where we suspend disbelief in the supernatural. Let’s never forget - with imagination and creativity, all things are possible. This trait goes back several thousand years. That ought to tell you something

 

[hugh_miller]

Regardless of whether evolution is true or false (a banned topic), the age of the universe and of the earth appears to be on the order of billions of years.

Radio-carbon dating will not produce accurate results for anything older than 100,000 years. Attempting to date such objects will end with inaccurate results, because of radio-isotope fluctuations and because of alternate mechanisms of production of C-14 (see Libby 1970; Spitzer 1978). These cannot be accounted for using standard radio-dating techniques, because these techniques function analogously to chemical rate methods, which break down due to fluctuations at the limit of small abundances. A stochastic method can be applied, including other production and destruction reactions for C-14, and this will accurately date millions-of-year-old fossils by a lower limit (typically you get ranges of “older than 150,000 years”, etc.).

Carbon-14 is likely observed in space (in IRC +10216); this does not mean that IRC +10216 is five thousand years old.

The context is off.

*I thoroughly agree with your first statement to wit: “Radio-carbon dating will not produce accurate results for anything older than 100,000 years.” **This is precisely why C-14 dating trumps the other dating methods which are meaningless as observed by Dr. Oosterwyck and as other scientists have observed in their lab experimental research during the past 20 years or so. ***

The summary of supporting evidences for accuracy and validity for radiocarbon date for dinosaurs are as follows:

(1) Discovery of collagen and soft tissue in T-Rex and other dinosaur bones where none should exist after 30, 000 to 100,000 years let alone 65 million.
***(2) Bone collagen and the Calcium carbonate fraction of bone Bio-apatite gave concordant dates from 23,000 for 25,000 for Hadrosaur and 30,000 to 33,000 RC years BP for Triceratops femur bones and other dinosaurs from TX to AK. ***
(3) Dr. W. Libby [discoverer of RC dating method and nobel-prize winner] showed that purified collagen could NOT give erroneous ages (Libby, 1964).
(4) Thomas Stafford data in 1990 demonstated that conventional C-14 methods of purifying collagen were within 5 % of his “absolute” purification method for collagen.
(5) Crushed dinosaur bone containing Calcium Carbonate fraction of bioapatite when treated with dilute acetic acid to remove abosorbed calcium carbonate under vacuum gave the oldest RC dates for the above dinosaurs femurs. The older dates are often considered the accepted ages for any given bone.
(6) Diamonds supposedly 0.5 to 3 billion years old has sufficient C-14 in them to give C-14 ages ranging from 60,000 to 80,000 years BP. (Southard and Taylor)

---

***Therefore the dinosaur bone C-14 dates are accurate and the earth is NOT ***
4.5 billion years old and the alleged 65 million years between dinosaurs do not exist. Therefore evolution of life from a common ancestor appears more and more to be a fairy tale for modern theologians and others who believe in the evolution hypothesis.

---

Here is another condition under which radioactive decay rates can change which makes all decay methods of measuring the age of the rocks meaningless. It is cavitation. Recently Fabio Cardone of the Institute Lo Studio dei Materiali Nanostrutturati in Rome and his colleagues have shown a dramatic increase by a factor of 10,000 in the decay rate of thorium 228 in water as a result o ultrasonic cavitation. Ultrasonic cavitation is commonly known to occur under certain flood and water flow conditions. redhero.splinder.com/post/17182366

Back to the main question of this topic: Why did God Create Dinosaurs? To confound the scoffers who teach evolution as a fact and ignore His word and that of the church fathers.

 

[Astrochemist]

While I do agree that science deals exclusively in the natural world, I just want to say that so does most everything else…

Though arguments can be made about these, as I understand them, these do not deal exclusively with the natural world:

1. Art
2. Music
3. Philosophy
4. Ethics
5. Theology
6. Mathematics
7. Creative Writing

And the list goes on. I’m reminded of a quote by the great atheist Terry Pratchett:
“Humans need fantasy to be human, to be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.”
“Tooth Fairies? Hogfathers? Little—”
“Yes. As practice. You have to start out learning to believe the little lies.”
“So we can believe the big ones?”
“Yes. Justice. Mercy. Duty. That sort of thing.”
“They’re not the same at all!”
“You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy, and yet… and yet you can act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there is some… some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.”
“Yes, but people have got to believe that, or else what’s the point—”
“My point exactly.”
(From the Hogfather; Death talking with his granddaughter)

 

[grannymh]

Hello, Granny! Nice to meet you.

While I do agree that science deals exclusively in the natural world, I just want to say that so does most everything else. There’s only one exception - where we suspend disbelief in the supernatural. Let’s never forget - with imagination and creativity, all things are possible. This trait goes back several thousand years. That ought to tell you something

Nice to meet you too. I’m familiar with the saying that [live] theatre is the suspension of disbelief.

However, belief in the supernatural is not theatre. The concept of supernatural comes from understanding the true, real, fully complete human nature. When exploring immaterial/spiritual of the human species, there is the risk of a circular argument. To avoid this, the spiritual element of the human being – all its qualities, faculties, actions, effects, that is, the spiritual shebang – is seen as a “whole” or as an intimate unification of the rational/corporeal, spirit/matter, soul/body.

The concept that the human being is unique and thus beyond the physical/material realm does go back many thousands of years and has taken many, many forms. The very ideas of imagination and creativity signal the spiritual intellect in human nature.

If the supernatural soul cannot be put under a natural science microscope how do humans know it exists? Ah, one says. The answer is not so difficult. The reality of spiritual existence can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. " That ought to tell you something."

Blessings,
granny

Spring is a message of hope sent by the Creator.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

Why did God Create Dinosaurs? To confound the scoffers who teach evolution as a fact and ignore His word and that of the church fathers.

Thing is - C-14 is not used to date dinosaur fossils. Whoever told you otherwise is misleading you.

 

[Astrochemist]

I thoroughly agree with your first statement to wit: “Radio-carbon dating will not produce accurate results for anything older than 100,000 years.” This is precisely why C-14 dating trumps the other dating methods which are meaningless as observed by Dr. Oosterwyck and as other scientists…

I accept that other dating methods are accurate. In spite of your credentials which, though more impressive than mine, are still very flimsy, there are far more people with far more impressive credentials who support the idea (if this matters at all).

More to the point, the idea of radioisotope dating in general makes sense, and if performed properly, reaches results which are weakly similar to astronomical dating (there are good reasons to think that the sun is billions of years old, and that the universe is still older; it is reasonable, by other methods, then, to date the earth at around 1 to 10 billion years).

If you would like to get into a serious investigation about non-C-14 radioisotope dating, I will be unable to answer most of your questions, but I have friends who specialize in the science behind this, and who would probably be able to assist you with questions or criticisms you may have about the process.

As with any scientific model, however, radioisotope dating rests on certain assumptions. I find these assumptions to be empirically well-justified and, what’s more important, possessing a strong predictive power.

Regardless, it is always possible that the field of science is wrong, and that all we observe and reason is a lie. Belief in God protects me from this possibility, but it’s still worth mentioning.

Oh, and from your list (4-6), stochastic calculations will yield correct predictions of the C-14 abundance (since they account for fluctuations), given the actual age of the material in question.

 

[Astrochemist]

Thing is - C-14 is not used to date dinosaur fossils. Whoever told you otherwise is misleading you.

Indeed.

 

[hugh_miller]

Thing is - C-14 is not used to date dinosaur fossils. Whoever told you otherwise is misleading you.

Someone is misleading you. Re-read my previous post closely and remember there is a book Published by The National Research Council of Italy. There is a 22 page report in this book with 80 some references in which two dinosaur femur bones were sawed open and dried up Haversian canals and other material was sent to a lab and they extracted collagen and C-14 dated them They were in the same age range as mammothsm mastodons, saber tooth tigers, (Smilodon). There are evidences from physics and sedimentology experimental research in this book that trumps evolutionary assumptions and speculations.

Again I say re read-what I wrote and look at the diamond data as well. You claim to be a SKEPTIC. Are you truly a skeptic or have you swallowed the evolutionary propaganda hook, line and sinker?

 

[Astrochemist]

Someone is misleading you. Re-read my previous post closely and remember there is a book Published by The National Research Council of Italy. There is a 22 page report in this book with 80 some references in which two dinosaur femur bones were sawed open and dried up Haversian canals and other material was sent to a lab and they extracted collagen and C-14 dated them…

There are, from my understanding, good reasons not to take a study like this very seriously from the perspective of having anything to say about the age of the thing tested.

It’s interesting only for those who may posit another mechanism for C-14 production, or a possible slowing of rates.

It is my understanding, however, that stochastic calculations can well-account for these abundances.

 

[StAnastasia]

Someone is misleading you. Re-read my previous post closely and remember there is a book Published by The National Research Council of Italy. There is a 22 page report in this book with 80 some references in which two dinosaur femur bones were sawed open and dried up Haversian canals and other material was sent to a lab and they extracted collagen and C-14 dated them They were in the same age range as mammothsm mastodons, saber tooth tigers, (Smilodon). There are evidences from physics and sedimentology experimental research in this book that trumps evolutionary assumptions and speculations.

Again I say re read-what I wrote and look at the diamond data as well. You claim to be a SKEPTIC. Are you truly a skeptic or have you swallowed the evolutionary propaganda hook, line and sinker?

 

[StAnastasia]

Are you truly a skeptic or have you swallowed the evolutionary propaganda hook, line and sinker?

Hugh Miller, like Pope Benedict I accept evolution. The theory explains the evidence far too cogently for the pope and me to ignore it. We are joined by Archbishop Josef Zycinsky of Poland (God and Evolution, 2006), and by hundreds of priests, hundreds of thousands of biologists, other scientists, theologians, historians, philosophers, etc.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Let’s never forget - with imagination and creativity, all things are possible. This trait goes back several thousand years.

So living among the Na’vi in the world of Avatar is possible if we only imagine hard enough?

 

[StAnastasia]

Catholicism … does not change the doctrine that there are two real sole parents of the human species. real as in opposition to figurative or symbolic.

Granny, are you an advocate of the two languages epistemological model? That is, do you acknowledge the scientific account of the emergence of hominids from their common ancestry with other primates, imagining this emergence as stopping some six thousand years ago when Adam and Eve popped into existence?

If this is the case, did Adam and Eve live for a while among the 3,000-10,000 breeding pairs of hominids who did not have souls? For a time was there a growing population of Adamites living side by side with these soul-less humans who looked in every other respect like the Adamites?

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

 

[Astrochemist]

Granny, are you an advocate of the two languages epistemological model? That is, do you acknowledge the scientific account of the emergence of hominids from their common ancestry with other primates, imagining this emergence as stopping some six thousand years ago when Adam and Eve popped into existence?

If this is the case, did Adam and Eve live for a while among the 3,000-10,000 breeding pairs of hominids who did not have souls? For a time was there a growing population of Adamites living side by side with these soul-less humans who looked in every other respect like the Adamites?

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

This is a difficult issue. The Ordinary Magisterial teaching is clear: Adam and Eve must have existed as real people, and must have been the actual origin of species. Whether this indeed happened or not is scientifically unclear, but it seems unlikely.

If scientific evidence strongly supports (‘establishes’) that there were many first humans from whence we came, this would be grounds to dissent from Ordinary Magisterial teaching, but only after a very long hard reflection and study. After all, positing that Adam and Eve weren’t the sole parents of the human race puts into question the whole reason of Christ’s passion and resurrection. Why would Jesus die for a group of evolved animals unconnected to sin and spiritual death?

It is clear that the advent of the spiritual soul, of the human person, was of such a nature that the physical sciences cannot genuinely connect with the mystery. If dissent from the current position of the Magisterium about Adam and Eve were warranted, it would have to be of the most humble yet honest sort, in claiming that “science seems to show that humans did not come from two people, but from many”, and then waiting for answers that must arise from that far more noble science of theology, answers I would only trust if they came from the Pope and those Bishops in union with him.

Because of these complications, and because of the inconclusive nature of the scientific evidence, I accept that Adam and Eve were hominids chosen among a group of hominids, and specially made (via some unknown and physically unknowable process) into human persons.

 

[StAnastasia]

If dissent from the current position of the Magisterium about Adam and Eve were warranted, it would have to be of the most humble yet honest sort, in claiming that “science seems to show that humans did not come from two people, but from many”, and then waiting for answers that must arise from that far more noble science of theology, answers I would only trust if they came from the Pope and those Bishops in union with him.

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. There is no genetic signature in the human genome that our species ever fell significantly below a population of 3,000 - 10,000 breeding pairs. There is certainly no evidence that it passed though the extreme “genetic bottleneck” of a single breeding pair.

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