Why did God create dinosaurs

[Lost_Wanderer]

There are no tools around the Pyramids, on Easter Island, in Tiahuanaco (Bolivia), and in many more places where humans left big constructions, made of blocks weighing tons and we still have no clue as to how they made them or how they move them. Does the lack of these tools mean that man didn’t use tools to cut and move those blocks?

Well if you’re going to talk about the Bronze Age, the oldest pyramid (the Pyramid of Djoser) was said to have been constructed around 2630 BC–2611 BC. That’s a lot of time since the start of the Bronze Age. With that said, it would be easy to imagine them using plain old metal tools.

Furthermore, there are many a hypothesis regarding their construction so I wouldn’t exactly say “we have no clue”. The same can be even more said of the Easter Island statues and Tiahuanaco which were built much, much later.

Man made and used tools made of rocks more than any other material prior to the bronze or iron age. There were more rocks than bones out in the open. That’s why they call it the Stone Age, not the Bone Age.

Maybe bone tools from dinos are in the same boat with the missing link, waiting to be found.

You see to assume that man lived with dinos would mean they either utilized them, hunted them, or at least had to protect themselves from them. Don’t forget, these monsters were really bigger than any land animal we have on earth, heck they were probably the only type of animal to have predators bigger than our modern-day elephants. With that said, there has to be some proof of such co-existence other than drawing obscure similarities with mythical creatures (creatures, by the way, that were capable of more powerful things than even what your average dino could do).

 

[Astrochemist]

The above rspect for priest/scientists being so, why not acquire the book by Fr. Victor Warkulwiz, M.S.S. entitled “The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11” A compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins. It is everything a Catholic needs to know to uphold the literal truth of Genesis 1-11 as the front cover explains.

This sounds interesting to some, but ultimately very time-consuming, and will likely not sway me. Let me express why:

I work on astrochemistry (hence the name). Astrochemistry first presumes that the measurements between stars and galaxies is accurate. There is much to suggest this is. Now, unless the light was created in transit at the beginning of the universe, an initial condition that would make doing any astronomy or astrophysics virtually worthless, that means that the universe is billions of years old. The fallout from the initial explosion of space-time also indicates a similar date. Our understanding of the evolution of galaxies and stars follows from, and supports, this time-scale.

Further, everything I do in astrochemistry involves taking initial abundances of elements ejected from the cores of stars, and calculating their interactions, predicting what molecular abundances should be in nebulae and protoplanetary disks. These abundances take hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate, and the predictions on this time-scale are, for simple molecules, very accurate.

There is good evidence, from our understanding of nuclear physics and the life-cycle of stars, to suggest that our sun is billions of years old. Astrochemically, this means that our star’s system is also billions of years old, and so the earth is as well. The prevalent view on radioisotope dating gives a date that is within the estimated age of the earth, given these astronomical considerations.

What I would need to accept that the earth is only 10,000 years old is strong evidence of a mechanism that would (a) alter radioisotope decay in such a way that stochastic calculations yield a 10,000 year old earth, (b) also explain the H-R diagram for stars, (c) explain how light could travel millions of light years in time-scales of less than a hundred thousand, (d) produce equivalent predictions for densities of quasars, elliptical and spiral galaxies, star formation rates, and molecular abundances observed in other systems, (e) explain why the cosmic microwave background radiation is at 2.7 K; OR (f) explain (a,b) and also why (c,d,e) doesn’t suggest a very old earth.

Until such a physical mechanism or small group of mechanisms (that involves strong new predictions) is discovered, I consider any reconsideration about any aspect of this problem to be a waste of my time.

 

[Astrochemist]

Well then I assume when it splits it rounds down so eventually people are going to have a value of 0 for soul. Or maybe if souls work just like a gene, then I guess you should see that depending on which genes you get some people have soles and some dont. Are souls dominant or recessive?

That would be mathematically wrong. If a value is restricted to whole numbers, there is no rounding.

If an animal has a spiritual soul, and can procreate successfully with another animal, whether or not it has a spiritual soul, I believe the resulting animal will have a soul. Not 1/2 of a soul, or 1/3 of a soul. One soul. And so forth.

 

[callime]

Job chapter 40 describes an animal but cannot be sure if it is a dinosaur. A couple of Chapters before 40 also describes a mosterous animal that lives in the sea.
But you know a whale lives in the sea and has scales and can froth up bubbles.
These animals and mammels and reptiles, did exist when the Earth was made.
Everything was put here for a reason.

So let me ask you this.
Do you know the laws of the Universe and how the Heavens influence the Earth?
God asked that question to Job.
Can we answer this question? I certainly cannot.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Job chapter 40 describes an animal but cannot be sure if it is a dinosaur. A couple of Chapters before 40 also describes a mosterous animal that lives in the sea.
But you know a whale lives in the sea and has scales and can froth up bubbles.
These animals and mammels and reptiles, did exist when the Earth was made.
Everything was put here for a reason.

I believe one can make a case for Behemoth to be any large land animal but not necessarily a dinosaur. As for Leviathan (the sea monster) however, you should rule him out as impossible. If you read the earlier parts of Chapter 41, it actually describes him as being able to breath fire not bubbles and that steam is said to be issuing from his mouth. Seeing as I’ve born witness to a lot of fantastic mythological creatures brought forth by human imagination, the best I can make out of Leviathan is a fierce, fire breathing sea-serpent (kinda unique really).

A real live animal though? Not likely. The closest thing real-life counterpart translators have found was the crocodile. Frankly, I think that scaly’s trap is lethal enough without shooting fire.

So let me ask you this.
Do you know the laws of the Universe and how the Heavens influence the Earth?
God asked that question to Job.
Can we answer this question? I certainly cannot.

Ever heard of Astronomy? :ehh:

 

[grannymh]

That would be mathematically wrong. If a value is restricted to whole numbers, there is no rounding.

If an animal has a spiritual soul, and can procreate successfully with another animal, whether or not it has a spiritual soul, I believe the resulting animal will have a soul. Not 1/2 of a soul, or 1/3 of a soul. One soul. And so forth.

In that case, our lovable dinosaurs would have what?

One needs to be careful with the use of the universal word soul
There is nothing spiritual or material in an animal. Dead they stay.

Doesn’t the animating principle which refers to soul in animals date to the Greeks?
Please check out last paragraph, post 308 in this thread, by Prieldedi for the Catholic use of the word soul.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred because of its immortal soul.

 

[Astrochemist]

In that case, our lovable dinosaurs would have what?

An animal soul. This is why I prefaced my statement with “spiritual soul”. I should have replaced every instance of “soul” with “spiritual soul”.

 

[grannymh]

An animal soul. This is why I prefaced my statement with “spiritual soul”. I should have replaced every instance of “soul” with “spiritual soul”.

Understood. Thanks.

 

[Prieldedi]

Well if you’re going to talk about the Bronze Age, the oldest pyramid (the Pyramid of Djoser) was said to have been constructed around 2630 BC–2611 BC. That’s a lot of time since the start of the Bronze Age. With that said, it would be easy to imagine them using plain old metal tools.

Furthermore, there are many a hypothesis regarding their construction so I wouldn’t exactly say “we have no clue”. The same can be even more said of the Easter Island statues and Tiahuanaco which were built much, much later.

You see to assume that man lived with dinos would mean they either utilized them, hunted them, or at least had to protect themselves from them. Don’t forget, these monsters were really bigger than any land animal we have on earth, heck they were probably the only type of animal to have predators bigger than our modern-day elephants. With that said, there has to be some proof of such co-existence other than drawing obscure similarities with mythical creatures (creatures, by the way, that were capable of more powerful things than even what your average dino could do).

My point is that lack of tools proves nothing. It doesn’t prove man and dinos coexisted nor does it prove they didn’t coexist. You cannot come to a conclusion based just on that fact.

I said before that I don’t know if man and dinos coexisted or not. We know there are human footprints alongside dinos footprints in at least two places in the world, which would indicate that they left those prints at the same time, whether it was minutes or hours apart. If man and dinos lived millions of years apart there shouldn’t be those footprints side by side.

Regarding the many hypothesis on the construction of the Pyramids: this means that we don’t know for sure how they did it, but logic tells me that tools were used. My point again was to emphasize that if we can’t find the tools today it doesn’t mean that no tools were used during their constructions.

What I see is that, every time scientists claim to have come to an absolute truth, something always comes to light to disprove that absolute truth, no matter what the field of science. Having seen this pattern for several decades now, I tend to take whatever scientists present as absolute truths with a grain of salt.

 

[StAnastasia]

What I see is that, every time scientists claim to have come to an absolute truth, something always comes to light to disprove that absolute truth, no matter what the field of science. Having seen this pattern for several decades now, I tend to take whatever scientists present as absolute truths with a grain of salt.

Prieldedi, can you give an example of scientists claim to have come to an absolute truth, or are you just making that up? I’ve never heard that claim myself, and I work with biologists, geneticists, geologists, anthropologists and paleontologists every day.

 

[StAnastasia]

IThere is nothing spiritual or material in an animal. Dead they stay.

Granny, do you have any evidence to support this claim other than “because the Church says so”?

 

[hugh_miller]

Granny, you still make a gratuitous and unfounded claim that humans are the only species on earth to exhibit intellect and will. Of course normal humans are intellectually far more versatile than normal chimps, but chimps are far more versatile than turtles, and turtles than tube worms. Look at the work of Marc Bekoff, Celia Deane Drummond, Gillian Sebestyen and others. If all and only humans have immortal souls, clearly intellect and will are not exclusively “powers of the soul.”

Psychologist Dr Gillian Sebestyen writes: “We shared 23 million years of evolution with great apes and then diverged approximately six million years ago. Gorillas have highly complex forms of non-verbal communication. I think we are looking back at what sort of communications skills we may have once had.” Sebeysten is at the Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development, Birkbeck College, University of London.

StAnastasia

I am looking at my March 2010 ssue of the Smithsonian. From the front cover I have three humanlike and/or apelike skulls along with a femur and some bone fragments looking at me. The title of the ensuing article is "DISCOVERING OUR ANCESTORS Researchers Trace the Human Family back 7 million years."

*For those of you on this thread who believe that the cute little birds chirping outside our windows and the chickens we eat came from one or more species of dinosaurs over zillions of years and that “We shared 23 million years of evolution with great apes and they diverged about 6 million years ago” you most certainly will enjoy visiting www.humanorigins.si.edu *

*Meanwhile others on this thread may want to encourage the good folks at the Smithsonian to C-14 date some of those bone fragments like other scientists have C-14 dated dinosaur bones and many other fossils that are supposedly 65,000,000 to 225,000,000 years old and found that the maximum ages are in the range of only 23,000 to ~33,000 years old. That’s over a 2000 times difference. And it all makes good scientific sense when you compare C-14 dating of coal at about 48,000 to 50,000 and diamond 55,000 to 80,000 years old. *

For late comers on this apish I mean dinosaur thread, diamonds are supposedly 0.5-3.0 billions years old. BUT one diamond broken into six pieces and C-14 gave "Concordant ages of 69,000 years just like individual dinosaurs gave concordant dates but much younger than diamond. Not surprising that diamonds are older than dinosaurs; they were perhaps part of the earth’s creation during the “six days” of creation.

*Gosh even human artifacts have been occasionally found when breaking up large chunks of coal. I wonder how such artifacts made it inside of coal? Gee Whiz, maybe Moses and all the cultures on earth were correct that there was a global flood only thosuands of years ago. Maybe many very young dinosaur species responded to Noe’s call to come aboard the Ark. There are both huge burial sites for dinosaurs world-wide and 1000’s of distinct dinosaur depictions in the last 3000 years. [A diocese in India thinks that a stampede of elephants took out some Hindu radicals who had killed many Christians in Oriza several lmonths ago; the Hndus called them *“Christian elephants” Of course none of us were there when Noe did his thing so we don’t know for sure how they came aboard but neither are evolutionary scientists sure as they speculate that we evolved from a common ancestor based on a few scattered bones bones and much speculation. Again I say C-14 date the fossils not the rocks and maybe we will be free someday to search for the truth in science regarding our origins without being brainwashed in our schools and media to belief evolution from a common ancestor over Zillions of nonexsiting years is a fact as noted in the Smithsonian magazine and their ad nauseam museum exhibits.

*Genesis 6: 13-21 [12-15]. 12. God saw that the earth was corrupt for all men lived corruptly on the earth. 13. And God said to Noe, The end of all creatures of flesh is in my mind; the earth is full of violence because of them. I will destroy them with the earth. 14. Make an ark out of resin wood; make it tight with fiber and cover it with pitch inside and out. 15. This is how you shall make it; the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits-----------.

---

Genesis 7: 1-24 [11-12], In the six hundredth year of Noe’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, on that very day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights----------.
*

 

[StAnastasia]

]For those of you on this thread who believe that the cute little birds chirping outside our windows and the chickens we eat came from one or more species of dinosaurs over zillions of years and that “We shared 23 million years of evolution with great apes and they diverged about 6 million years ago” you most certainly will enjoy visiting URL=“http://www.humanorigins.si.edu”]www.humanorigins.si.edu

]

Thank you, Hugh Miller – this is a very interesting web site. My department were asked to preview NOVA’s “Becoming Human” series and offer critique before the film was finished. We thought it good, but we made some suggestions for clarifying certain aspects of the presentation. The series has a few glitches with which professional scientists can quibble, but overall it does a good job of laying out the general outlines of human evolution.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Again I say C-14 date the fossils not the rocks and maybe we will be free someday to search for the truth in science regarding our origins without being brainwashed in our schools and media to belief evolution from a common ancestor over Zillions of nonexsiting years is a fact as noted in the Smithsonian magazine and their ad nauseam museum exhibits.

"Digging in the frozen tundra of Norway’s Svalbard archipelago, scientists have uncovered the remains of the most ancient polar bear ever found. DNA analyses reveal that the bear—a mature male—lived about 120,000 years ago, at a time when wooly mammoths were also roaming the land. The work also shows that this bear represents something very rare in the fossil record: an evolutionary snapshot of one species turning into another. “This is the most exciting new development in polar bear research in recent years,” says biologist and polar bear expert Ian Stirling of the University of Alberta in Edmonton.

The discovery of the fossil is a major breakthrough. Polar bears, which can weigh nearly 700 kilograms, spend most of their lives in the open ocean above the Arctic Circle, hiding atop ice floes and waiting for an unfortunate seal to take a break from swimming. When they die, polar bears are either torn apart by their comrades for food or sink to the sea bottom, where marine animals and microbes quickly dispose of their remains.

Consequently, scientists have lacked sufficient fossil or genetic evidence to determine when and where polar bears emerged, or how they developed their current preference for Arctic ice. Estimates for the date of their origins have ranged from 50,000 to over 1 million years ago. The new research “conclusively resolves a diversity of opinion about how recently polar bears evolved,” says Stirling, who was not involved in the research.
…
But in order to figure out if the fossil truly represented a polar bear, the researchers needed DNA. They got it by drilling into a canine tooth in the jawbone and extracting fragments of mitochondrial DNA, the genetic material passed down directly from mother to child. That DNA identified the species as Ursus maritimus, the modern polar bear, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Mapping the complete mitochondrial genome for such an old specimen is “an impressive feat,” says geneticist Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen.

When the researchers compared the fossil’s DNA with analogous DNA from six other specimens of living brown bears and polar bears, they detected genetic hallmarks of both species. That suggests that the fossil bear was one of the first polar bears to branch off from brown bears."

news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/03/early-polar-bear-discovered-in-a.html

 

[grannymh]

Prieldedi, can you give an example of scientists claim to have come to an absolute truth, or are you just making that up? I’ve never heard that claim myself, and I work with biologists, geneticists, geologists, anthropologists and paleontologists every day.

I can’t speak for the people you work with. But there are some posters who delight in making that claim. Their identities and areas of expertise if any, will remain private.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, do you have any evidence to support this claim other than “because the Church says so”?

Thank you for catching my typo.

The sentences should have read: There is nothing spiritual or immaterial in an animal. Dead they stay.

 

[grannymh]

I am looking at my March 2010 ssue of the Smithsonian. From the front cover I have three humanlike and/or apelike skulls along with a femur and some bone fragments looking at me. The title of the ensuing article is "DISCOVERING OUR ANCESTORS Researchers Trace the Human Family back 7 million years."

Do you have a link for this article? It would be appreciated. Thank you.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

…

 

[StAnastasia]

I can’t speak for the people you work with. But there are some posters who delight in making that claim. Their identities and areas of expertise if any, will remain private.

Granny, you will have to show evidence of your allegation. I don’t know any scientists who make the sort of claim you ascribe to them. Are you sure you’re not just making that part up?

 

[StAnastasia]

Thank you for catching my typo.

The sentences should have read: There is nothing spiritual or immaterial in an animal. Dead they stay.

Granny, do you have any evidence to support your claim “dead they stay” other than simply "because the Church says so? That’s not a reason other than simply an appeal to authority. I’d like to know what that claim is based on.