Even if you don't believe in evolution, how can you explain the bones of dinosaurs?  They sure don't look like an elephant's. I can't recall a mention of a a dino being on Noah's arc.
124537
There are 3 earth ages (II Pet.3:5-7), same earth but different ages. We are now in the 2nd earth age. Between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2 is a vast amount of time, if time existed. Between these 2 verses is Satan’s rebellion (Rev.12:3-4) and “his tail” drew 1/3 of God’s children. Between these 2 verses also belongs all fossils and remains, such as Dinosaurs.\n\nIn Gen.1:2 we have the of the end of the 1st earth age and the beginning of the 2nd. For clarity Gen.1:2 needs to be divided (see below).\n\n(A) Gen.1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. \n\n(B) Gen.1:2 And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.\n\nIn (A) Gen.1:2 the first occurrence of the word “was” has been corrupted and is “became”. It reads “And the earth became without form, and void”. The end of the 1st earth age.\n\nIn (B) Gen.1:2 we have the beginning of 2nd earth age, the one we live in now. Man did not exist in flesh till this earth age.\n\nBetween (A & B) Gen.1:2 is also a vast amount of time, if time existed. Between (A & B) Gen.1:2  is; a global flood (not Noah’s which was a local flood), the destruction of Atlantis, the breakup of Gondwana Land, and the Ice Age. \n\nTime means nothing to our Father. He is very patient and loves His children. Instead of destroying Satan and 1/3 of His children, He destroyed that first earth age. Now in this 2nd earth age we all are born innocent in the flesh. Father came in the flesh Himself, Jesus Christ, and paid the price for all. Father defeated Satin, that is death, legally. So now His children have a decision, to choose life or to choose death. It’s your decision. Choose life!!
218561
The theory that Satan put the dinosaur bones on this earth to confuse people and make them doubt god and what the bible says. \n\nConsidering there are modern day descendants of dinosaurs still roaming the earth.
194361
MISSING LINKS: \n\nAll of the "missing links" on this page are examples of poor anthropology being used in an attempt to convince the public that God does not exist. Unfortunately, this rush to judgment is a consistent and erroneous theme of the evolutionary science community. The only thing missing from their studies was thorough research.\n\n• NEANDERTHAL MAN: When this prehistoric man was first discovered, only part of an arm was recovered. Yet, the scientific community fabricated an entire ancient society around an arm bone. Scientists have since found quite a few Neanderthals and after careful study have concluded that these ancestors were regular humans with bone disease, probably rickets.\n\n• PILTDOWN MAN: For more than 50 years we were led to believe that this ancient creature was another supposed ancestor of modern man. Two scientists eventually took a closer look and found out that Piltdown man was a fraud. This invented creature was a composite of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a small child. The original "discoverers " had stained these bone fragments to gain recognition and promote the falsehood of evolution.\n\n• NEBRASKA MAN: One ancient tooth was discovered in Nebraska. Eager evolutionists built a whole\nimaginary society and lifestyle around this single tooth! When they found the rest of the skull some two years later, it was clear that the tooth belonged to a pig. For many years, evolutionists described Nebraska Man as a missing link.\n\n• JAVA MAN: This prehistoric man was found on the island of Java and was reported to be the missing link between man and ape. After serious study it was found that the two pieces of Java Man were from two different skulls from two different areas of the island. Both were from the same species, probably an Orangutan, but they were not the parts of a man. Recent human skulls have now been discovered in the same layer of rock.\n\n• PEKING MAN: This manlike creature was found in China during the early part of this century. No other scientists have directly observed this site and it has not actually been seen in more than 50 years. All of the examples of Peking Man were reported to have the back of their skulls smashed in, exactly matching the result when people of that region hunt for monkey brains. Also, modern human remains were found at the same site.\n\n• LUCY: Lucy is the latest find that has been almost universally accepted as mankind's ancestor.\nLucy is an Australopithecus, that is actually more like a monkey than man. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, they were found to match a chimpanzee, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations.\n\n• LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS: These footprints were found in the same strata as the Lucy bones. Evolutionary scientists have said that Lucy-like animals made these, but a podiatrist concluded they are modern human footprints. It appears that Lucy is not an ancestor of modern man, but simply a monkey.\n\n• KENYA SKULL: Recently it was reported that scientists had discovered a fossil of a skull in Kenya that evolutionists claim has more human-like features than "Lucy." This means that evolutionary scientists must once again revise their theory of man's origin. Ken Ham, Executive Director of Answers in Genesis says that the newly discovered fossil - which he says is nothing more than the skull of a chimpanzee - only pokes more holes in the argument for evolution.\n\n• ARCHAEOPTERXY: Originally thought of as a transitional fossil between the reptiles and birds, it is now considered by most evolutionists to be a true bird. Also true birds have been found lower in the fossil record, making them older than Archaeopteryx.\n\nChinese paleontologist Xu Xing contends that Archaeopteryx is a combination of two fossils: one of the body and head of a birdlike creature and the other of the tail of a dinosaur. Xing says he has found anoth
408560
tell a scientist that a truck can evolve given a billion years and he would say you are foolish.  The same scientist would say you are foolish to say that the theory of evolution is to be believed otherwise you are foolish.  truck is much much much less complicated than even a single celled oraganism. If a scientist can't even agree that a truck can never be made without a creator how in the world can he prove that the whole world with all its extrememly complex designs which are interdependent on each other so much that its so delicately balanced evolved itself? Doesn't that sound more stupid?   plus just because there are a set of evidences that support evolution that does not mean that evolution is proved. just because you see small footprints in the sand you can't conclude it is of a dog, it could be any other animal , hence the conclusions drawn from evidences can't really be conclusive.. whatever you think I can't ever understand evolution though I have really read and seen a lot about it.\n\n-----------------\n\nlol, see its hard to believe a truck could construct itself in a billion years.. taken as a big blunder said by me .. haha..  after all scientists say that evolution did happen through a series of random chances.. so why not a random chance of getting a truck? sounds absurd, huh?  thats the kind of absurdity that even the theory of evolution has because its says that so many things much much more complicated than a simple truck evolved itself from nothing.. I mean from no life. which is really much harder to believe.. and just one sentence out of a whole argument might look stupid, but when you take the whole argument it would not look that stupid. And evolutionary proof is not conclusive.. its only supportive.. there is much difference between supportive and conclusive.. and I am not an ignorant person who simply states without knowing anything, I am really much interested in science and read and see a lot of things..
513419
Proof is in the eye of the beholder. And one cannot prove anything to someone who doesn't want to be convinced that his or her own ideas are wrong.\n\nThere may not be anything which you would consider to be proof, but there is evidence, and the evidence comes from each and every related scientific field.  I believe in evolution because of the evidence for it, and the lack of any evidence for alternative "theories," like creationism or Intelligent Design.  Such evidence as:\n\nThe progressive nature of animals, plants, and fungi within the fossil record. These fossils were clearly not all deposited and fossilized at the same time, since they are all in different strata, and isotopic dating indeed confirms that those buried deeper are older. Below is a list of progressively more complex life forms and the aproximate age of the fossils as they appeared.\nMicrobial (procaryotic cells) 3,500 MYA\nComplex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000 MYA\nFirst multicellular animals 670 MYA\nShell-bearing animals 540 MYA\nVertebrates (simple fishes) 490 MYA\nAmphibians 350 MYA\nReptiles 310 MYA\nMammals 200 MYA\nNonhuman primates 60 MYA\nEarliest apes 25 MYA\nAustralopithecine ancestors of humans 4 MYA\nModern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years) MYA\nOne can criticize the accuracy of the isotopic dating method until Christ returns, but until creationists can come up with a more accurate and reliable method to date rocks and fossils, they are simply whining. When properly done, isotopic dating methods are highly accurate, and other independent methods collaborate the findings.  Creationists tend to NOT perform these procedures correctly.  Why?  Because they don't want accurate results.  Evidence AGAINST evolution is not evidence FOR creationism.\n\nStructural homologies. Why do humans have tailbones? Why do boas and pythons have vestigial limbs? Why do whales have pelvises? The mammalian ear and jaw are instances in which paleontology and comparative anatomy combine to show common ancestry through transitional stages. The lower jaws of mammals contain only one bone, whereas those of reptiles have several. The other bones in the reptile jaw are homologous with bones now found in the mammalian ear. Paleontologists have discovered intermediate forms of mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida) with a double jaw joint--one composed of the bones that persist in mammalian jaws, the other consisting of bones that eventually became the hammer and anvil of the mammalian ear. Any scientific theory that wishes to explain how life formed on the planet must explain why different species share similar structures, as well as homologous metabolic processes, such as the clotting cascade in blood. Even the most advanced fishes do not have blood that clots, but in the more advanced fishes, parts of the cascade are present. In the simple fishes, less of the parts are present. Yet the fossils of the first simple fishes are found in much deeper geological strata than the advanced ones, meaning they are much older and came about first. Evolution explains all of this nicely; common descent. Creationism doesn't explain it at all. \n\nThe distribution of species. On the Galapogos Islands, there are many species of animals and plants that are similar to those found on the mainland of South America, but are radically different in many ways. Specifically, the 14 different species of finches found there, the Marine Iguana, and the Galapogos Land Iguana. What is the explaination as to why these animals appear on the islands and nowhere else? Simple. Due to the prologed geolgraphical isolation and the unique requirements to survive on that island, natural selection picked those animals that were different form the rest. They survived to pass on their genes, and they established a population.\n\nSimilarities During Development \nEmbryology, the study of biological development from the time of conception, is another source of independent evidence for common descent. Barnacles, fo
574281
I understand what you're saying -- I believe in the theory of evolution.  But you do realize that people are just going to say God put it there in the beginning?  As fossils -- not as ancient creatures imprinted or encased in stone.
644236
I read the answer to the question "How did marsupials get to Australia?" and the article "The Grand Canyon, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid". Is it the same people that say evolutionists have no evidence and that their explanations are ridiculous? Whoa!\n\nGood to know that several christian churchs/organizations accept evolution as a valid theory and that it doesn't contradict their belief. And I wonder too, is it ok for christians to lie in such shameless ways?
665990
There aren't any dinosaurs in the bible. They just look back at comments about dragons and say 'See dinosaurs! We knew it all along.'. Um, no. \nBy the way, there are unicorns in the bible:\n\nNum 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn. \n\nWell, now we all know that unicorns exist. Thank you informative and fact filled bible.
315871
The dinosaurs fit right in. What I don't get is how more people don't see how it fits but let me give you my humble opinion. This is not doctrine, this is one man's opinion. This is what I believe. On things of God we have a couple a sacred texts or scripture, in the oldest book about God written by the hands of prophets on stone, papyrii and what not we have accounts of the creation, in Genesis the first of even the pentetauch we are given such as slim or incomplete description that it is possible that 1 billion years could pass by as we read in a matter of one stanza. It has been said that 1 day in God's time is 1000 of our years in our reckoning. So lets take the first 6 days of the creation, or in particuliar the the 5th day after he had made some grass and light and stuff. In Gen 1:20 it say that He said" Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21. And God created great whales, and every living vreature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and Multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 32. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was so. " So that 5th day was very busy and at 1000yr /day reckoning its possible that it took 365,000 years to complete but cant know precisely yet . The beast of the earth that is referred to, also the great whales that are referred to, also refences to unicorns and all manner of beasts now extinct, isn't it possible that although not specifically mentioned that and on the 5th day about the 6th and 1/2 hour God made the T-rex and he blessed them and saw that they were ferocious. No . We only have this small wordage to assemble together the whole of creation. I dont see a problem with 17 billion year universe age and putting it into Gods plan at all. Bless you and have a pleasant tomorrow.
354255
Let me preface my thoughts by stating that I am not an Evangelical Christian, so I have a broader interpretation of Christianity.  With that said, let me answer your questions.\n\n******\n"Do you not believe in EVOLUTION and SCIENCE?\n(dinosaurs, man came from the ape..etc)"\n\nEvolution and science are not necessarily contradictory to religion.  For example, evolution could be considered *how* the Divine created the "what."  This is my argument, as I do believe in both evolution and science, as well as the Divine.  There are many who denounce evolution saying that it is theory--it is not.  Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" (a term that was not coined by him) is theory, but opponents of evolution have lumped the two together.  While evolution is not simply "man came from the ape," it does lead us to observe microcosmic and macrocosmic changes in the world.  Theologically, evolution can be considered the "tool" the Divine used to create everything.\n\nIn general, religion can be considered to be similar to philosophy--both of which are humankind's attempt to, through mythology and ideology, understand the world in a way that is more meaningful than a scientific approach.  Actually, the science of today originated from philosophy and religion.\n\n******\n\n"Do you not think the bible is full of CONTRODICTIONS?\n(adam and eve were the only two people so where did everybody else come from)"\n\nOf course, but contradictions can be found in any field, including that of science.  There are three main problems that can be found with the Bible, though:\n\nFirst, the text was written over many years by a handful of people.  This could easily lead to contradictory content.  Of course, you must be sure what you are reading is correct, which leads to the next problem.\n\nSecond, the majority of the Bible has been transliterated, which means it was translated from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek/Latin to English/French/etc.  This means that much meaning has been lost.  The only way you can honestly say the Bible is full of contradictions is to read it in the original languages.  Much insight can be found by doing so.\n\nThird, the Bible is incomplete.  There are many "books" and documents that have not been included in the text.  This is due to the watchful eye of papal administration.\n\nI personally don't take too much stock in the stories of the Bible--they are simply written in the mythological/archetypal language of the human psyche.  They are wonderful stories and can speak to a person in very meaningful ways, but they are just stories.  It must be noted, however, that an increasing number of these stories are being backed-up by archaeological evidence.\n\n******\n\n"Do you not think its something that people choose to believe in in order to feel that life has meaning?"\n\nNot necessarily.  Unfortunately, there are many who "believe" in Christianity just because that is what their parents (or parental figures) believed.  All mythology (Christian mythology not excluded) speaks to our base understanding, which relies on symbols and archetypes.  All humans use myth to create their realities (Atheists not excluded).  These myths can be a Creator God, a Sacrificial God, Science, or no God at all--the same archetypes are there.\n\nSince pre-history, human beings have strived to better understand the world in which they live.  This brought meaning to their lives.  However, they have had many "tools" to accomplish this task, tools such as science, religion, mathematics, and philosophy.  Each of these tools were created to bring meaning and understanding to a person's life.
237044
Whoa! Thanks so much for the LOGICAL information against evolution, especially the lie about us being 99 percent identical to chimps. I knew about some of the other forgeries, but thanks. What's disturbing, though, is that some of these things are still promoted by biology teachers in school as fact. For example, the industrial melanism and peppered moth example has still been used in high school biology courses, even AP Biology. Thanks for all the information; it definitely strengthens the idea of a God who wouldn't let this all happen by chance. \nThe only question that remains for the evolutionists, though, is why. Why would they want to support an idea that says we are related to monkeys? Why would they want to downgrade the status of man like this? I simply don't understand it. Though, according to classification, we are primates, we are much greater than that. We are humans. It mystifies me as to why evolutionists can't accept this idea.
44805
weird huh.\n\nconsider this too.  arn't we all really decendants of Noah?  after the flood he saved the animals and only his family.\n\npretty suspsicious.
275181
Sorry, this took longer than I thought it would.\n\nYou seem to be already convinced that science is favors evolution more than creation.  Modern science was invented by Christians.\n\nHere is some stuff about mitochondrial eve.  http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html\nSince the original DNA study was done, it was found that an error had been made and that the actual time of Eve's existence was only about 10,000 years ago.\n\nHuman foot prints chasing dinosaur footprints.  http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm\nNow we know the real reason they are extinct - they were delicious.\n\nYou've probably heard of the tectonic plate theory (continental drift theory), but have you every heard of the Hydroplate Theory.  The latter does a much better job of explaining things in a more scientific manner with more geological evidence to back it up.  In other words, it supports the Bible story of a global flood.  See here: http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=13091\n\nThat's all I have time for now.\n\nPS-You won't find ANY of the above in your science textbook.  Its called CENSORSHIP which is why you weren't told about the existence of all this other scientific evidence.
591994
Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible. Read this:\nhttp://www.bibleandscience.com/science/dinosaurs.htm
31663
Re.:  Dinosaurs \n\n\nI believe that God created upon this earth PRIOR TO Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3.\n\nI believe God destroyed all prior creation (Gen.1:2) to bring forth man created in God's likeness (Gen.1:26), with an UNBROKEN lineage beginning with Adam.\n\n\n\nPat (ndbpsa ©)
532377
I have studied earth science. \nFirst of all, their scientific name is a (best estimate) i.e. in their opinion. so the wee table is just their own version of what refers to modern day equivalent in science. \nThe only evidence they use to suggest the bible is talking about a dinosaur (rather than elephant or hippo) is a tail like a Cedar.  this could apply to crocodile but they don't mention that - apart from to say "oh -BTW it can't be a croc eh?" without actually giving any decent reason as to why.\nI don't know why I can't read Job 41 18-21without realising it breathes fire.  Such obviousness escapes me.  As also does the beetle chat. err...because one thing (and I haven't bothered to look up if it can) breathes fire, another surely can? What - how does that work? Because a flea can jump 50 times it's own heigth, can I? Also, all earth scientist would love to have a fire breathing lizard, but no studies have proved it's existance.   \nThen later (I'm skimming this now, there's loads of made up stuff), they say "Nobody has ever proven that the Bible contains any inaccurately recorded information" - well I'd kind of like to see the other way round.  Proving a negative is, well, impossible.  If I said there is a planet made of jelly a milllion light years away, does that make me correct until proven wrong? \nthen they do that wonderful thing of "hmm yes we have evidence of dinosaurs being created one day before man etc etc...but in order to see it you have to read through pages and pages of more subjective chat", personally I gave up cos if they are that confident they would put there evidence right in their on their page, or at least give a description of how.  \nThis page is someone's belief and doen't make me think anything other than what I have studied through rational science.
439733
You have got to be kidding me. I have a favorite 'prehistoric water-dwelling animal'? I believe in a young earth anyway, so they're not prehistoric. I guess maybe Leviathan.