• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.


Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by UMP, Jun 16, 2005.

  1. UMP

    UMP Well-Known Member

    Because Dinosaurs became extinct long ago, many people are naturally curious about their fossil remains and the well oiled legends which go along with them. As they hear these theories, some begin to wonder if the supposition about evolution could possibly be true. And with the constant bombardment of propaganda from nature shows and Paleontologists, this confusion is somewhat understandable. But it is never an excuse for a Christian beginning to doubt scripture. One of the problems with man is that when he hears the same teaching presented as fact over and over again, he will inevitably start to believe it. Particularly when he never hears the other side of the story. But the theory of Dinosaurs predating man is simply a house built upon sand. In other words, it has no firm foundation. But as long as no one examines it carefully, and nothing comes along to test the structure to show it faulty, it appears to be standing firm.

    The simple truth is, "if one's assumptions are wrong, then his conclusions will also be wrong." And when Christians begin to put more stock in the word of men than they do in the Word of God, then their priorities are skewed. More than that, they have abrogated their allegiance to the Word of God!

    A lot of Christians make the statements that they do about Dinosaurs because they "assume" that there is overwhelming scientific evidence not only about the age of our planet, but about when Dinosaurs and man came upon the scene. This is the great evolutionary deception of the scientific community. For true science is based solidly on facts, not assumption, presupposition, and theory. Of course they throw in some facts, but what holds their theory together is the "assumptions and presuppositions," not the facts. Without these assumptions, the facts just lay there meaningless. What many do not understand is that carbon dating relies heavily on assumption, and presupposition of things like the consistent rate of decay over time, the starting makeup, etc. They are assuming things that they don't know in order to arrive where they want to be.

    For a Christian to believe in evolution, he must either, (1)Not know what evolution means, (2)Not understand what Christianity means, or (3)Both! Either God was not telling the truth when he said all the animals and man were created on the same day, or Dinosaurs and man co-existed. One or the other is true, but not both.

    Paleontologists and nature shows of course don't give equal time to anything which contradicts whatever theory they profess is the truth, and most don't even call it a theory anymore. It's almost impossible to get any unbiased information from any of these shows. And yet it is called science! At best we can read their papers ourselves to understand the other side of the story. But of course few people these days like to read, and more just wouldn't have the time to sift through scientific journals. There are some Christian scientists who give us the other side of the story, but in general America and indeed the world, gets their information from television and schools. Therein lies the problem of how this theory is now expounded "as if" it were a fact. When you have only points, and no counterpoints, it's easy to get people to believe what you're saying. To make a real decision on what is true, you not only need to hear what they say is occurring, but what others say about their flawed methods, why and how it scientifically cannot be. And that's what you don't hear. Be not deceived.

    There were Dinosaur footprints found in the same stream bed as that of man, but as the years have passed, there are now concerted efforts by some to proclaim these footprints must be some kind of mistake, or they were made by an ape man, and even that maybe the dating process was wrong or that it's not a man's footprint at all. Why? Simple, because they've already come to their conclusions, and so they will not be confused by the thought of a man's footprint with dinosaurs. When it contradicts all they stand for and have been saying, it automatically must be wrong! Therefore, they set out not to scientifically examine it, but to prove it wrong. Many christians parrot the line put forth by these people accepting their words as facts because to them it "seems" to be correct. People have blind faith that what these scientists and Paleontologists say is true (since we're not scientists ourselves), but it's misplaced faith. Humans tend to repeat things that sound good as if they were parrots. That's why we have so many false doctrines being accepted today as truth by so many deceived people. Because people don't bother to check anything, they simply reason, "..that sounds reasonable, so it must be right," and accept it simply by hearing it enough.

    Dinosaurs are a case in point. They are simply exotic animals, more of what we now have on this planet now. Simply because an animal is huge or becomes extinct doesn't make it a prehistoric beast that must have been a product of evolution. We have all sorts of Beasts that would appear prehistoric to us had we never seen them before. Can you imagine what you would think if you had never in your life seen a Rhinoceros because it died off years ago, it's bones had become fossilized and then were dug up? You would be astonished by it's appearance. It would strike you as something of a great Wonder! Even an Elephant (if you had never seen one), would appear an exotic and wondrous beast. If it had died off about 5000 years ago and then someone dug up a fossil of an elephant, you would be at the mercy of those scientists from just a few bones telling you how it moved, what it's flesh consisted of, and how it lived. They could paint any scenario of how these creatures camouflaged themselves by standing near rocks, or ran rampant killing everything in their sight with their tusks, or that they were docile creatures. ..whatever they said, we'd all look at the picture of this beast they construct and say, "Yeah, that looks like an animal that would do that, it must be true". i.e., our ignorant and unconscious acceptance of the faith which says, a scientist said it, so it must be true! We are at the mercy of whatever they imagine. And this is what scientists do with Dinosaurs. They dig up fossils and they tell you they lived millions of years ago, and how they lived, and what they did, and people take it as fact or near fact, simply because it seems right. We act as if nothing ever becomes extinct, when in fact animals and plants are becoming extinct all the time. The Buffalo almost became extinct. This is no great revelation or evidence of anything particularly peculiar.

    It's not a fact that Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and died off before man came on the scene, It's a cruel hoax, and a rejection of God's Word! Man and beast were made on the same 6th day according to God. Now who is going to Argue with God but scientists wise in their own conceits, and those who follow their word "as if" they were the all knowing being.

    Tony Warren
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. MaddyO3

    MaddyO3 Senior Veteran

    In Relationship
    I don't understand why dinosaurs and evolution have to contradict Christianity.
  3. UMP

    UMP Well-Known Member


    Genesis 1:25-26
    • "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    • And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

    So if God didn't make both Adam and the Beasts on the same sixth day, then the whole Bible is all a lie. And if these days are extended periods as some suppose, then again we have a lie because that would make Adam billions of years old in this supposed billion year day. Remember, Adam is still there on the seventh day. Again, it makes God's word about the fall and the sin of Adam all just another lie. In man's scenario if the beasts being created on the 6th day evolved, so did Adam crewated on that same 6th day. Else we have confusion. But man didn't evolve, and neither did Dinosaurs. The whole sordid theory is an attempt to subvert God's Word and place man in the Temple as his own word of truth. His own god.

    It's ironic because they probably wouldn't even be finding so many fossils of Dinosaurs had it not been for God sending the great flood in Noah's day, and yet they exclude God from the equation. The state of preservation of most of these fossils indicates a quick burial and encasement in mud. It was this great rain and mud that caused most of these fossils. Normally animals and sea creature's remains don't fossilize. They rot and decay and deteriorate and return to dust. The Dinosaurs fossilized because they were quickly buried and trapped in mud under heavy pressure. When the mud compressed and hardened to rock and sandstone, the fossils of these things were created.

    The question is, do we believe in real science, or in contrived science? Take a tub full of mud and put a star fish in it, put it in a press, add pressure, and set it out in the sun to harden. You're going to have a fossil some day if you store it away and wait long enough (and it won't take a million years either)! On the other hand, take a starfish throw it in the woods, and it will rot, be eaten by insects and worms, and bacteria will cause it to decay and deteriorate until there is eventually nothing left but the dust from which it originally sprang. Even if you bury it, the same thing will happen! Throw it in the ocean, the same thing will happen. It normally takes an extraordinary cataclysmic event to create fossils. ..like a "Great Flood" which encases things in mud when it asways! The Bible answers these simple questions, which man in his zeal to be his own god, makes complicated for his own agenda.

    Likewise, God created this earth with the "appearance" of age, just as He created wine from water instantly with the appearance of age. It normally would take years to create the finest wine, but God did it Instantly. As He created Adam with the appearance of age, a grown man in one day. And the same with this world of ours, and the stars in the heavens:

    Hebrews 11:3
    • "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
    Things are "truly" not as they appear. And that is what man in his arrogance does not understand. Are we to think that God created the stars and relaxed for a billion years waiting for it's light to reach earth? No, he created the stars instantly, and it's light in transit instantly shown upon the earth. He is God!!! He doesn't need to follow man's laws of the universe, God is creator of those Laws. It's his law! i.e., he is not subject to the laws of the universe, the laws of the universe are subject to Him! Which is why He can do miracles. If he had to follow those laws, He wouldn't be God! He set those laws into existence in a day. And one of them is that man and Dinosaur was created on the same day. Dinosaurs are simply creatures which have become extinct, and which man in his abstinent heart has created fables and myths about, contrary to the Word of God. Man's views are more in line with the imagination and the lust or thrill of an adventure movie. It has nothing to do with the Beasts whose actual fossils are found.
  4. moneymanager

    moneymanager Active Member

  5. UMP

    UMP Well-Known Member

    The rest:

    Another question that is often raised is, does the Bible speak of these Dinosaurs. You would think so, but to be honest we cannot really say for certain. However, it seems pretty logical based on circumstantial evidence of scripture that either dinosaurs or dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. The Hebrew word [livyathan] translated Leviathan, as near as we can tell means some sort of large fierce sea creature. It could very well be some sort of (what we call) dinosaur. The places where it is found in scripture, bears this out. For example, Job 41 where it asks rhetorically,

    Job 41:1-10
    • "Canst thou draw out Leviathan with a hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
    • canst thou put a hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
    • will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
    • will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
    • wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
    • shall the companions make a basquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
    • canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
    • lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
    • behold the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
    • none is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?"

    The message here of course is that this sea creature is so fierce that men are brought to tremble at the mere sight of him. The claim by some that this could be a whale or a crocodile is frankly ludicrous given these verses. This creature is obviously both huge, and fierce, that no one dare rouse him up. This doesn't seem to fit any creature we know today. Again,

    Job 3:8
    • "Let them curse it that curse the day, who are ready to rouse up Leviathan."

    In other words, this verse is calling these the foolish who will do foolish things. i.e., waking up Leviathan is a foolish thing to do. God also speaks of this beast in illustrating his glory to be able to do all things.

    Psalms 74:14
    • "Thou breakest the heads of Leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness."
    God fears nothing, and all is under His power, including the most fierce and feared of the beasts of the earth and sea.
    Psalms 104:25-27
    • "So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great Beasts.
    • there go ships: there is that Leviathan whom thou hast made to play therein.
    • these wait all upon Thee; that Thou mayest give them their meat in due season."

    Even these great fierce creatures of the sea are under control of God, and their destiny as he ordains. They eat not without his say so. These verses illustrate God's Sovereignty even over the fierce creatures which man fears!

    The last place this Beast is mentioned is in Isaiah where he is used in symbolism for Satan, as he is defeated and salvation brought forth.

    Isaiah 27:1
    • In that day the lord with His sore and great and strong sword shall punish Leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent, and He shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."

    And so it's clear from these passages, whatever this beast refers to, it is of some great fierce creature of the sea, which I do not believe we can identify as existing today. We know a whale would not qualify as the fierce creature who men would fear to rouse up. A whale is generally a gentle creature and doesn't sleep in the sense that man could rouse him up.

    But this word is not by any means the only place where we would say that God could be speaking of what we today call dinosaurs. In an astounding passage, God speaks to Job and He describes something that certainly from the description fits the bill to be what we call dinosaurs. It's spoken of as Behemoth [behemowth], a Hebrew word used only (here), and which means some sort of giant beast.

    Job 40-15-24
    • "Behold now Behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
    • Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
    • he moveth his tail like a cedar: the senews of his stones are wrapped together.
    • his bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are bars of iron.
    • he is the chief of the ways of God: He that made him can make His sword to approach unto him.
    • surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
    • He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
    • the shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
    • behold he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up jordan into his mouth.
    • he taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares."

    Some have said that this is an Ox, or an elephant, or a hippopotamus. This would be a distortion of scripture, as Clearly it is stated that he eats grass "like an ox" (-Job 40-15, therefore it can't be an ox) and that he moveth his tail like a cedar (a elephant and hippo barely have a tail), and drinketh up a river (an ox?). A Behemoth with a tail like a cedar tree puts a picture in our minds of what we call a dinosaur, perhaps even a Brachiosaurus. These creatures lived on the earth at the same time which man lived on the earth (their inclusion in the Bible assures this), until they became extinct. Which again means man's theories of evolution and that they could not have lived at the same time of man, makes God a liar once more. Christians need to understand that about this theory. It is generally thought by most learned Theologians that the book of Job may very well be the oldest book in the bible. And that would account for so many mentions of creatures such as these Behemoths and Leviathan. It has nothing whatsoever to do with (so called) Prehistoric beasts!
  6. jayem

    jayem Naturalist

    Organic evolution and the antiquity of dinosaurs only contradict a very literal interpretation of the Bible. There are many, many Christians and Jews, and many legitimate Bible scholars who don't agree that the Bible has to be taken as absolute word-for-word fact.

    An excellent reference: "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism," by Bishop John S. Spong; Harper, 1992.
  7. Freodin

    Freodin Devout believer in a theologically different God

    "The Bible is true!" - this is the doctrine that some people need to defend at any cost. If that means making God a liar, someone how builds his creation deliberately in order to deceive us, someone whose acts contradict his words - then be it so.

    God is irrelevant to these people - it is their idol, the Bible that is important.
  8. Valkhorn

    Valkhorn the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

    Dinosaurs were reptiles.
    Reptiles do not have placental birth.
    Reptiles do not have navels.

    Only mammals have navels.
  9. UMP

    UMP Well-Known Member

    The original Hebrew word here is not translated "navel" but rather part of the stomach. (pg. 285 of "Wilsons Old Testament Word Studies")
  10. troodon

    troodon Be wise and be smart


    And then there are some Christians that make the statements that they do about Dinosaurs because they have seen and studied the overwhelming scientific evidence not only about the age of our planet, but about when Dinosaurs and man came upon the scene.

    Dang it! I hate it when I deceive myself.

    What you do not understand is that carbon dating has nothing to do with dinosaurs.

    Yeah, what do physicists know about the decay rates for unstable isotopes that have remained stable for the past 80+ years (remember, that's 1.3% of earth's history according to YEC)

    Yeah, everyone knows that volcanoes used to spew out Argon-rich magma.

    My professors would probably disagree with that one.

    I can only pray that God disagrees with this one. I guess I'll find out someday ;)

    A young earth was falsified before paleontology became a serious science. Evolution via natural selection was hypothesized by Darwin and Wallace looking at modern populations, not extinct ones. Paleontology is a very serious science, one that I think I've studied in much greater detail than you.

    No, it's still a theory.

    Then stop watching television and read some paleontological journals!

    And I suppose that I help to feed the lines into the parrots?

    May I ask what is the motivation behind these diabolical scientists and paleontologists? Why are they deceiving everyone and, more importantly, why am I deceiving you?

    Actually I find the evolution of the smaller theropods (2-10m in length) to be the most interesting.

    Most modern animals are rather unimpressive compared to extinct animals, in large part because we're talking about 600 million years or so of terrestrial animals compared to the population that exists today. Except for humans and some marine animals (blue whales may be the most massive animals in earth's history) animals today aren't all that impressive.


    This is baluchitherium, a close relative to the rhinoceros. Only way cooler :cool:

    Compared to the rest of the fossil record, no.

    Nah, it would just be another large mammalian herbivore. We wouldn't even have a conclusive way to know about its trunk.

    Once again I wish we still had the rolling-eyes smilie
  11. Kripost

    Kripost Senior Veteran

    Another problem is that the Bible speaks of the Leviathan and Behemoth as if they are the only one of their kind in existence, and not groups of them.
  12. troodon

    troodon Be wise and be smart

    You forgot the more important parts:

    "His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together."

    No ancient marine reptiles were armored, and heavy scales would have made them far less streamlined in the water.

    "Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out
    Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds"

    Never seen an animal breathe fire. You?

    "The folds of his flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and immovable"

    No marine reptile would have been stoutly built like this, they were lithe and agile.

    "His undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge".

    Again, the creature is armored or heavily scaled.

    Sauropod teeth could not cut grass.


    They're conical, not grinding teeth. Look at a horse's or cow's mouth next time you see one. No sauropods had grinding teeth, they were too large and needed too much food to bother chewing.

    Also, my NIV (perhaps heretical in your opinion) says

    "Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in your marsh."

    While your quote is less definitive this translation clearly shows an animal that spends time immersed in water, something sauropods were incapable of; especially in the Jordan.
  13. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    If you are talking about the Paluxy River, there are two different types of footprints identified as "manprints."
    1. Incomplete dinosaur prints misidentifed as human.
    2. Human footprints carved in the rock by forgers.
    None of them are real human tracks.

    LOL! It is the creationists like yourself you are blindly following their faith and ignoring the evidence becasue it is not to their liking.

    Why are there so many different species of elephants in the fossil record? Why are mammoths and mastodons found in the past, but no modern elephants? Why does the fossil record clearly show that life in the past was different??
  14. Macano

    Macano Senior Member

    Proof? An awful lot of conjecture, but show me proof. The science has huge amounts of it, but creationists have words.
  15. Talcos Stormweaver

    Talcos Stormweaver Fighter of Ignorance!

    There is one larger question at hand: Why, UMP, would the entire scientific community seek to decieve and manipulate the entire world?
  16. Joe Atheist

    Joe Atheist Hairy Reasoner

    Excellent! Your journey to the dark side is almost complete!

    You simply need to take the final step...

    Good luck
  17. Joe Atheist

    Joe Atheist Hairy Reasoner

    The bible IS the word of men. If anything is the word of god, it is the natural world around you, which is exactly what science seaks to study and understand.

    If there is a contradiction between what we can learn from the world (gods word), and what we can read in the bible (mans word), the error is almost certainly in the bible... don't ya think?
  18. Asimov

    Asimov Objectivist

    Strike him down, he is unarmed!!!
  19. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    No one has ever found fossilized dinosaur dung that contains grass. Why do you think that is? Dating of grass fossils puts the first grasses as being around about 20 million years ago, well after dinosaurs went extinct. There is no evidence that dinosaurs ever ate grass, and plenty of evidence as to why that is.

    Like above, dinosaurs don't have navels, nor do they have anything on their bellies. This becomes more important in the next verse.

    Do you know about the doublet system that biblical authors used. This verse and the one before it are tied together. We have "loin" and "cedar" tied together. In this verse, the term "tail" is a euphemism for male genitalia. This euphemism was inserted in the KJV. In the Greek Septigunt it literally says male genitalia (the word penis is automatically edited). "Stones" are even more obvious. Guess what "stones of the loins" could be referring to. Hmm. Needless to say, this is an obvious reference to external genitalia, something that dinosaurs never had but are a characteristic of every mammal species.

    Mammals have strong bones as well.

    Not really descriptive of what the animal looked like.


    Doesn't sound like a dinosaur. Sounds more like a resting hippo or rhino.

    Trees covering him? Again, doesn't sound like a dino but a lot like a hippo or rhino.
    Definitely a hippo.

    As I have said, it was not referring to a tail but a penis. And hippos do eat grass and let it hang out of their mouth just as an ox would do.

    Actually, think John Holmes, closer to the actual imagery that the author intended.;) The author was relating it's "power" with it's manhood, so to speak.