ok the dinosaur existed we have fossils prove, but, they dont appear on the bible any where?
363569
I think that in the book of Genesis, it does mention a "Behemoth" of some ilk- with an enormous tail (ergo, it could not have been an elephant).\n\nAdditonal notes:\n\nIt is in the story of Noah and the ark, where it makes this reference.
672165
No, Dinosaurs are not a myth.  We have thousands of specimens of fossilized dinosaur remains that indicate that these were indeed real creatures that once lived on our planet.\n\nI have no idea what a "Dimo" is, so I can't answer whether or not the 'Anatomy and Physiology of the Dimo' supports the existence of Dinosaurs, however the anatomy and physiology of archosaurs, avians, and the dinosaurs themselves certainly supports their existence.\n\nThe bone of an animal does not out weigh the flesh.  The skeleton of a 150 pound man would only weigh 10 to 15 pounds.  That comes out to at most about 10% of the weight of the flesh.\n\nWhy wouldn't the creator make carnivores before man?  The bible even says he created the animals before he created man.  Even if you believe the flawed, illogical sequence of creation put forth in the biblical account, there's no reason not to believe that dinosaurs could exist.\n\n'What flood?'  Exactly!  What flood?  There is absolutely no geological evidence that there has ever been a global, total flood that covered the entire Earth in water.  Even if there were, it has nothing to do with the existence or not of dinosaurs.\n\nDinosaurs did not kill themselves off.  The hypothesis with the widest general acceptance in the scientific community is that a massive impact with a meteor or comet at the end of the Cretaceous in conjunction with other stressors brought about the extinction of the dinosaurs.  Certainly no one has ever suggested that the dinosaurs somehow deliberately caused the meteor to crash.\n\nWhat doesn't look natural about their construction in the various re-constructions you have seen?  I have seen some that look very good, and others that look like cheap Hollywood effects (mostly because they are).  I've also seen cartoons where people are depicted with yellow skin, giant bug eyes and three fingers.  That doesn't mean that people don't exist, just that the depiction is not very accurate.  Critters like three-toed sloth, pangolins, sea cucumbers and walking sticks don't look 'natural' either, and yet they do indeed exist.  Just because a creature doesn't meet your expectations of beauty or conform to your notion of what a proper animal looks like doesn't mean they are mythical.\n\nNo one has to lie to get people to 'believe' in evolution.  People who actually look at things like physical evidence and scientific experimentation without jumping to pre-drawn conclusions based on religious dogma are almost invariably convinced of the validity of evolutionary theory.  The only lies are spread by those who refuse to accept evidence that they erroneously believe attacks their religious beliefs.\n\nMan doesn't come directly from a fish.  If you look at the morphological and anatomical similarities between a Sarcopterygian fish and an early amphibian, between an amphibian and a reptile, between a synapsid reptile and an early mammal, between an early mammal and an insectivore, between an insectivore and a prosimian lemur, between a lemur and a monkey, between a monkey and an ape, between an ape and an early hominid, between the hominid and Homo erectus and between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens, you too will see the constant, slow and gradual development of some characters and the conservative retention of other characters that indicates a long and gradual evolutionary process from fish to man.\n\nThe Big Bang theory is a whole 'nother topic, even bigger, you might want to post another question about that.  It too has little to do with the reality of dinosaur existence.\n\nMaybe the book "Jarasic Park" talks about the "myth of Dinosaurus", but the novel "Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton which was made into a series of increasingly bad films certainly does not.
738275
I believe it is about 6,000 years old, based on a plain sense reading of the Scriptures alone.  The Bible also explains dinosaurs very well. Dinosaurs are land animals. Land animals were created on Day 6, thus dinosaurs were created on the same day as Man, and Man walked with dinosaurs originally. The dinosaurs, like all the others, were vegetarian in their diet. There was no death before the fall, and all ate plants and fruits. The sin of Adam changed many things, and perhaps carnivory began after the fall. Two of each kind of dinosaur went up the Ark (the rest died in the flood waters), they left the Ark, and many went extinct like any other animal that has gone extinct. We have stories and legends of men dueling and killing monsters or dragons which are most likely based on the encounters with surviving dinosaurs. You won’t find the word “dinosaur” in our Bibles because it was a word invented in 1842, after the Bible was translated into English. Instead we have words like Behemoth and Leviathan which are descrined in detail in Job. And when dinosaur bones are being dug up, there are no tell tale labels about how old they are. In fact, scientists have found red blood cells and muscle tissue when they cut opened the T-Rex fossils. The implication of this finding is that the fossils aren’t millions of years old.
1127519
http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/dinosaurs.htm explains everything.
501182
ask a christian or a muslim then you would know that no dinosaur was more than 6000 years old :D\nother than that i don't really know :-<
1074144
In the grand scheme of things, those aren't important.\n\nThe Bible is a guide on how to live your life and how to walk according to God's wishes.  I'm not as good in my Bible as I should be so I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense.\n\nAnd I do believe they reference dinosaurs in Genesis vaguely - someting about monsters of the deep - during the flood story.
154015
The existence of dinosaurs is a scientifically proven FACT. The Bible is a traditional compendium of narratives spanning many centuries. Belief in the Bible is a matter of FAITH.\nIf you choose to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, then there's no place for dinosaurs. Or you could come up with some laughable (from a scientific viewpoint) and wild theory such as the ones mentioned above.\nIf you are able to understand that the Bible holds so many much more important messages and ideas, and that it was composed in very different historical and cultural circumstances (and some parts are just not applicable today), then you can approach paleontology and evolution without feeling that you're condemning yourself.  \nFaith and science are not incompatible.\n\n------------------------------------\ncanislupus, that was _awesome_ lol!\n\nHowever, I've answered in earnest, I hope the asker is not offended by the joke.
891014
As much as I want to believe my religion, I feel that the evolution theory is correct . If the bible was written incorrectly or abridged by the writer of genesis to not include dinosaurs, and the timeframe infered between Adam and Eve and the creation of the Earth were different, then it would be possible that both theories are correct.
391353
fossil evedence of what?  that you came from a monkey?  I did not evolve that way.  We belive there was a flood, we belive in dinosaurs so the fossils pose no problem we just don't belive that we came from monkeys so yes we can go to natrual history musuems, i have visited quite a few with my church by the way
1016987
Better yet, how did Noah feed and contain all those monsterous dinosaurs?\n\nAnswer is: its a big con....there was no ark !\n\nSlim
36205
The Catholic Church largely accepts that evolution happened. No dinosaur (other than their bird descendants) ever walked the Earth at the same time as man. Ever. Dinosaurs went extinct sixty five million years ago when a large asteroid struck the Earth in the Yucatan peninsula and spread a layer of iridium across the entire surface of the Earth (to this day, a thin layer of it can be found in the KT strata.)\n\nPope John Paul II, in a speech before the Academie Francaise said that evolution 'est plus qu'un theorie' (is more than a theory.) His assertion was that truth cannot contradict truth. It is true that God is capable of (and did) allow a universe to unfold over thirteen billion years. It is also true that he sent his son, Jesus Christ, to redeem the world on the cross.\n\nBoth are true. Science and what it discovers is important. Scientific truths allow us to improve our understanding of our environment, and come up with ways to improve our quality of life. And theological truths allow us to understand our purpose, and come up with ways of accepting his grace which improve our relationship with God. \n\nNeither needs to inhibit or stop the other. Nowhere in scripture do St. Paul or Jesus establish a soteriological test which requires, for salvation, a belief in a young Earth, or dinosaurs stomping down the streets of Fred Flinstone's Bedrock. Which is the more limiting? To insist that God is capable only of a 6,000 year old 6 day creation? Or that he might be capable of a 13 billion yeaar old universe 30 billion light years across? \n\nFaith in Christ, and that alone, is what is asked for. That is why our church does not teach against evolution.
480790
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.
178643
People have been finding dinosaur fossils for hundreds of years, probably even thousands of years. There are references to "dragon" bones found in Wucheng, Sichuan, China (written by Chang Qu) over 2,000 years ago; these were probably dinosaur fossils.\n\nMuch later, in 1676, a huge thigh bone (femur) was found in England by Reverend Plot. It was thought that the bone belonged to a "giant," but was probably from a dinosaur. A report of this find was published by R. Brookes in 1763.\n\nThe first dinosaur to be described scientifically was Megalosaurus in 1824, by William Buckland a British fossil hunter and clergyman who discovered some Megalosaurus fossils in 1819 and named the reptile in 1824. It was the first dinosaur ever described scientifically and first theropod dinosaur discovered (this is all in hindsight, because the dinosaurs had not yet been recognized as a separate taxonomic group - the word dinosaur hadn't even been invented yet).
930216
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
599017
Thye lived a long time ago, and the closest living relative to the dinosaurs is the crocodile.  Crocodiles have remained unchanged for 1000's of years.
408149
No one knows if dinosaurs existed, what we know is that fossils of dinosaur bones exist.  The sensible explanation is that dinosaurs did exist and their bones became fossils, but why do you care about what is sensible?  According to the bible the earth was created in 6 days, that is wrong to.  The only time the bible is right is by accident.  Snakes use to talk in the bible.  You have to admit the bible leaves a lot out.  Like if Adam and Eve had 2 sons, and no daughters, where did Cain and Abel's wives come from?
742072
What is the creationist response to feathered dinosaurs?\n\nThey stick their head in the sand and repeat over and over, "I believe the Bible, I believe the Babble."