Did dinosaurs ever exist?

[shernren]

What reasons do YECs have to believe that dinosaurs exist? After all,

1. dinosaurs are not mentioned in Scripture
2. a dinosaur is literally a "terrible lizard", and far be it from God who is a good God and a perfect Designer to create creatures which can only be named "terrible"
3. the extinction of the dinosaurs would imply that God is unable to sustain and keep in existence what He created and designed
4. nobody has ever seen a dinosaur, so you have to accept fossils "on faith", while ignoring other viewpoints such as that fossils were manufactured by Satan during the Fall in order to trick modern Christians into believing that the earth is old, that God would create monstrosities, and that God would let any of His creatures go extinct.

I think a medieval theologian (assuming s/he knew about fossils, of course) would be horrified at the fact that creationists today believe that these fossils were actually real creatures instead of demonic counterfeits, and they would seem like they had been compromised by modern science and brainwashed into believing the existence of dinosaurs without any evidence for them.

 

[ichtus423]

i believe in YEC but i've never put much thought into whether or not dinosaurs really did exist. i have no doubt that the fossils are real, but i guess it's just a question that won't be answered in this life, or maybe it will. my theory has always been that they were killed in the flood. before the fall of man everything in the earth was in harmony, so i guess maybe dinosaurs just couldn't coexist with humans after adam sinned so they were destroyed. lol, i'm just coming up with ideas. or maybe they were just too big to fit in the ark and noah had to leave them out. poor dinosaurs...lol

 

[Willtor]

Ah, Shernren, this is going to be a doozie.

/me ducks.

 

[Redneck Crow]

I've never figured out why the aquatic ones would have drowned.

 

[Smidlee]

What reasons do YECs have to believe that dinosaurs exist? After all,

1. dinosaurs are not mentioned in Scripture

I wouldn't expect the word "dinosaurs" be in scriptures since this is a modern classifications. Classifications is very useful but animals doesn't always fix our classication. Yet large animals are mention in scriptures.

2. a dinosaur is literally a "terrible lizard", and far be it from God who is a good God and a perfect Designer to create creatures which can only be named "terrible"

this was exactly Gods point to Job in Job chapter 40 and 41. If these creatures would be called today dinosaurs isn't the point. But ovbiuosly these creatures was so huge in Job days men had great fear of them. God remind Job if you fear these creatures as terrible than what about the one who created them.

3. the extinction of the dinosaurs would imply that God is unable to sustain and keep in existence what He created and designed

why is that? Just because God doesn't heal someone doesn't imply He not able to heal them,etc.

4. nobody has ever seen a dinosaur, so you have to accept fossils "on faith", while ignoring other viewpoints such as that fossils were manufactured by Satan during the Fall in order to trick modern Christians into believing that the earth is old, that God would create monstrosities, and that God would let any of His creatures go extinct.

actually some evolutionist claim birds are dinosaurs. Again Dinosaurs is human classifications. Of course there nothing wrong with classification since it help organize things but you got to be careful of being too dogmatic.
We today do have creatures just as big living today (whales) so it doesn't take much faith in believe there were big creatures, no matter what classification they fall under in the past.

I think a medieval theologian (assuming s/he knew about fossils, of course) would be horrified at the fact that creationists today believe that these fossils were actually real creatures instead of demonic counterfeits, and they would seem like they had been compromised by modern science and brainwashed into believing the existence of dinosaurs without any evidence for them.

I believe you thinking too hard on this. I doubt medieval theologians was as stupid as many today believe.

 

[Mallon]

Honest question: I wonder if creationists think that we should learn about dinosaurs in school, given that "we weren't there" to see them. If not, where should we learn about them?

 

[shernren]

I believe you thinking too hard on this. I doubt medieval theologians was as stupid as many today believe.

Wasn't me who accused them of being stupid, note.

from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ray.html

Ray's theories about fossils were mixed, but he always supported the theory that fossils were once living organisms. Some fossils, perhaps, had been formed in the Biblical flood, when "the fountains of the deep" had washed marine organisms onto the land through great fissures. However, Ray did not believe that all fossils, or even most fossils, had been formed in this way. Ray's scientific objections to the Deluge -- that fossil were found in discrete beds, and that a flood would have washed fossils away from land, not onto land -- echo those of Leonardo da Vinci over a century earlier. Rather, Ray explained most fossils with this hypothesis: during the creation of the world, the Earth had been covered by a single ocean, where the fossil organisms had once lived, which had slowly receded to expose the land. Other fossils might have been formed when the ocean floor was raised by "subterraneous Fires and Flatuses" (that is, volcanoes and earthquakes), although Ray thought these were rare events. Ray's ideas were opposed to other prevailing theories of the origin of fossils: that they were lusi naturae, "games of nature"; that they were formed by some sort of creative force or "Plastick Virtue" acting on the Earth; or that they had been made by God for His pleasure, or by God as models for living organisms, or by the Devil to tempt, frighten, or confuse people.
But what to make of fossils that resembled no living organism? Ray explained this as due to ignorance of the full range of living organisms. Like most scientists of his time and after, Ray was reluctant to accept the idea that God would allow any beings in his perfect creation to go extinct: "If it be said that these species be lost out of the world, that is a supposition which philosophers hitherto have been unwilling to admit." Ray thought that the strange forms seen as fossils might still be living on the Earth in unexplored places. But towards the end of his life, Ray began to wonder what those mysterious fossils might mean. Some of his doubts came from his correspondence with the Welsh naturalist Edward Lhwyd (1660-1709), who in 1695 sent Ray some plant fossils of a type that had never been seen. Could such forms have grown within the rocks, as Lhwyd was inclined to believe? Or might such fossils indicate a much older Earth than the one of traditional Christian theology? In a letter to Lhwyd about his plant fossils, Ray wrote:

Yet on ye other side there follows such a train of consequences, as seem to shock the Scripture-History of ye novity [newness] of the World; at least they overthrow the opinion generally received. . . that since ye first Creation there have been no species of Animals or Vegetables lost, no new ones produced. But whatever may be said for ye Antiquity of the Earth it self & bodies lodged on it, yet that ye race of mankind is new upon ye earth, & not older than ye Scripture makes it, may I think by many arguments be almost demonstratively proved. . .
​

 

[laptoppop]

Modern YECs typically do not have any problem with the existence of dinosaurs. It demonstrates the incredible variety of life that the Creator put on this planet.

Similarly, extinction is a fact we can all agree on as well. We do not always understand everything -- but remember, we are in a fallen world, with sickness and death as well. There's no problem here for YECs.

Teaching about various animals (including dinosaurs) in school? Sure, no problem.

The only real issue here is *when*. A YEC would claim that dinosaurs existed contemporaneously with humans, in a much more recent past. In that context, overlapping human and dino footprints are no problem. Scriptural references, like the ones cited in Job above, are no problem. Worldwide legends about huge creatures, like dragons, are no problem -- but are one more piece of evidence that dinos and man lived at the same time.

God is truly amazingly creative in the variety of His creation.
-lee-

 

[steen]

The only real issue here is *when*. A YEC would claim that dinosaurs existed contemporaneously with humans, in a much more recent past. In that context, overlapping human and dino footprints are no problem. Scriptural references, like the ones cited in Job above, are no problem. Worldwide legends about huge creatures, like dragons, are no problem -- but are one more piece of evidence that dinos and man lived at the same time.

Just one problem. I see no evidence. And I see evidence to the contrary. So it becomes the YEC position of insisting similar to that of the flat-earthers.

 

[laptoppop]

I am dissapointed that instead of discussing the evidence and interpretation, you descend into name calling. Of course, that is one of the prime problems that often occurs in these discussions.
-lee-

 

[Catherineanne]

4. nobody has ever seen a dinosaur,

There are several very fine specimens in the Natural History Museum in London, inter alia. These museums are open to the public, and therefore there are many people who have seen a dinosaur.

Please excuse me if I do not base my faith on what a medieval theologian would have found appropriate to believe. There may be Christians today who think that a useful benchmark, and no doubt they have a bone of St Peter to ward off the plague, and a handkerchief hemmed by the Blessed Virgin proudly on display, but I think the rest of us have moved on somewhat from this kind of thinking.

For one thing, satan is not that powerful. The Bible tells us that God created the world, and said that it was good. I do not personally think he would then allow anyone to fool around and insert spurious evidence, just to trick us into thinking the world older than it is. What is the point, if we can believe in God, however old the world is?

Such an action would only be needed by someone of fragile and insecure faith, whose faith could be destroyed by finding evidence against the 5K year belief. Someone of secure faith can have a world 5K, 5million, 5billion or 5trillion, and God is still God. In which case, I suspect, satan would find better things to do. Such as plague, famine, racism etc etc etc. Messing around with bones and fossils really does not fit the picture, to me.

 

[laptoppop]

One of the key reasons to "mess around with bones and fossils" is to stand ready to give an answer to all. One common objection that I have heard from non-Christians has been that "We no longer need to believe the myth that God created everything -- Evolution explains it all without God." Please be careful about calling folks "fragile and insecure faith" because they are interested in things that you do not have the same interest in. Truth can stand up to any type of examination. God's primary revelation is through His Word, but we can also learn of Him through His creation.
-lee-

 

[Mallon]

I still don't see why creationists assume dinosaurs were once alive, given that we weren't around to see them. After all, the "you weren't there, therefore you don't know" argument tends to be their main line of defense against the theory of evolution. Why the hypocrisy? Following that same line of reasoning, scientific inquiry into dinosaurs should end where the bones begin.

 

[laptoppop]

Please be careful not to construct a straw man argument. Most young earth creationists that I deal with would not use the argument as you stated it. We would rather say - lets take the physical evidence and discuss the theories that would explain them. We believe that the theory that best explains the fossil record and other physical evidence is a young earth theory.
-lee-

 

[Catherineanne]

Please be careful about calling folks "fragile and insecure faith" because they are interested in things that you do not have the same interest in.
-lee-

Faith is not a function of interest.

A fragile faith is one, imo, which can be shaken by evidence within creation, because it is founded in creation.

This evidence may be of any kind. To a Creationist, it may be evidence of evolution, which they cannot allow themselves to believe, because the cost of that belief would be the loss of their faith.

To another kind of Christian, it might be evidence in the fallibility of Scripture. Again, they cannot allow themselves to look objectively at what is there, because the cost of recognising what is in front of them would be the loss of their faith.

Any Christian - anyone of any faith - who knows that there is something they cannot possibly consider, or else they will lose everything - is of insecure faith. Conversely the person who can look at any argument, consider any point of view, in the safe knowledge that God cannot be touched, cannot be defamed, cannot be profaned, is of secure faith.

Anything within creation is fallible, and imperfect, and cannot be relied upon as God can be relied upon.

If a person builds their faith upon God alone, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then all else falls into place, and they will not need to hang onto anything else. The image which comes to mind is the child with a security blanket. When mother arrives, the blanket can be dropped to the ground without any problem whatever.

 

[steen]

One common objection that I have heard from non-Christians has been that "We no longer need to believe the myth that God created everything -- Evolution explains it all without God."

What misuse people apply to scientific information is not the fault of the science.

Truth can stand up to any type of examination.

But YEC claims cannot.

 

[steen]

We believe that the theory that best explains the fossil record and other physical evidence is a young earth theory.

But then, that is not a Scientific Theory and has no scientific foundation for its claims. On the contrary, most YEC claims are proven false by scientific data. So what do you mean with "theory" in this setting? As it clearly doesn't relate to a Scientific Theory, what is it you mean?

 

[laptoppop]

You remind me of a story about some cave paintings in Rhodesia. It was believed that they were paintings of Brontosaurus. There was a local paleontologist who was asked to investigate. He refused to even go look because the paintings could not be a brontosaurus because the brontosaurus died out 70 million years ago. (http://www.parentcompany.com/great_dinosaur_mistake/tgdm17.htm)

Just proclaiming young earth creationism is not "scientific" does not make it so. Scientific truth is not determined by vote, or even by consensus, but rather by investigation, research, and discourse. Just about every major commonly accepted scientific theory or even fact was at one time held by a minority, sometimes a minority of one. This did not make it untrue. The earth is not flat, the earth revolves around the sun.

Please tell the researchers at the graduate school at ICR that they might as well go home because you have declared their work "unscientific"... without even looking at it.

-lee-

 

[Dannager]

Please be careful not to construct a straw man argument. Most young earth creationists that I deal with would not use the argument as you stated it. We would rather say - lets take the physical evidence and discuss the theories that would explain them. We believe that the theory that best explains the fossil record and other physical evidence is a young earth theory.
-lee-

Except that's not what young earth creationists say. Pretty much ever. They start with a belief in a young earth and then move on to find evidence that supports their claim, ignoring that which doesn't. That's why the entire scientific community disagrees with young earth creationists. If you really used the same method as the scientific community, you would be led to the same results as the millions of scientists doing work in these fields. You're right in that science isn't decided by vote or by consensus, but it is decided by repeated testing and results from different fields and different scientists that confirm the same conclusion.

 

[Cyberdyne1]

Of course dinosaurs existed. Didn't you see "Jurassic Park?" You don't think those dinosaurs were just special effects do you???