Do Dinosaurs Prove that Death Existed Before the Fall?

[Lady Bug]

Yes to question one.

no to question two.


they aren’t really related.c

I wish I could grasp how they aren't related, lol. I'm not good with this stuff.

 

[Bob Crowley]

The fly in the ointment is "human evolution", assuming that theory is correct.

If we believe in a literal Adam and Eve, what are we to make of Neanderthals or Homo Erectus?

Human evolution | Natural History Museum

Find out about the origin of modern humans - our species, Homo sapiens. Explore our family tree and hominin characteristics. Discover what Neanderthals looked like.

www.nhm.ac.uk

At what point did God pick out a male (Neanderthal? Homo Erectus? Home Sapiens?) and say "Hi! You're Adam!"

Then He created woman. She wanted conversation, a nurturing environment and romance.

She met Adam, and he said "Me Adam! You Eve!"

There's a conflict there and I haven't seen it addressed by the theologians.

 

[narnia59]

Yes to question one.

no to question two.


they aren’t really related.c

Every human person has a common male ancestor in Y-Chromosomal Adam and his ancestral lineage. So not sure how it's possible to claim that a Biblical Adam did not exist or that Christ would not have been related to him through Mary.

 

[TheCabinetGuy]

It only proves that they died. When they died is debatable. The fossil record is not a history of life, but of death. I believe that most of the layers we see in the fossil record are not epochs of time, but a single wave during the Flood of Noah.

Secular geologists recognize that the continents split apart long ago, and that something catastrophic happened that nearly wiped all life from the face of the earth. They say it was an asteroid, but there are too many holes in that theory. An asteroid would only cause one tsunami, but there were many. And it was followed by a period where it rained for... two million years? Asteroid, huh?

If the splitting apart of the continents were violent and rapid, rather than slowly over millions of years, then it would cause a worldwide flood exactly as recorded in the Bible.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Every human person has a common male ancestor in Y-Chromosomal Adam and his ancestral lineage. So not sure how it's possible to claim that a Biblical Adam did not exist or that Christ would not have been related to him through Mary.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the gnome research and the meaning of "Y-Chomoamal Adam". (From Wikipedia):

As with "Mitochondrial Eve", the title of "Y-chromosomal Adam" is not permanently fixed to a single individual, but can advance over the course of human history as paternal lineages become extinct.

Estimates of the time when Y-MRCA lived have also shifted as modern knowledge of human ancestry changes. For example, in 2013, the discovery of a previously unknown Y-chromosomal haplogroup was announced,[1] which resulted in a slight adjustment of the estimated age of the human Y-MRCA.[2]

By definition, it is not necessary that the Y-MRCA and the mt-MRCA should have lived at the same time.[3] While estimates as of 2014 suggested the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous,[4] the discovery of the archaic Y-haplogroup has pushed back the estimated age of the Y-MRCA beyond the most likely age of the mt-MRCA. As of 2015, estimates of the age of the Y-MRCA range around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, roughly consistent with the emergence of anatomically modern humans.[5]

Y-chromosomal data taken from a Neanderthal from El Sidrón, Spain, produced a Y-T-MRCA (time to Y-MRCA) of 588,000 years ago for Neanderthal and Homo sapiens patrilineages, dubbed ante Adam, and 275,000 years ago for Y-MRCA.[6]

Also you can't follow a Y-Chromosomal line if a generation produced only girls (a common enough occurrence) or the sons failed to reproduce at all (also common enough). So you couldn't actually prove any of the things you're claiming using Y-Chomomal research, since we don't know how many Y-Choromone lines we've lost to antiquity.

Although the informal name "Y-chromosomal Adam" is a reference to the biblical Adam, this should not be misconstrued as implying that the bearer of the chromosome was the only human male alive during his time.[7] His other male contemporaries may also have descendants alive today, but not, by definition, through solely patrilineal descent; in other words, none of them have an unbroken male line of descendants (son's son's son's … son) connecting them to currently living people.

 

[Michie]

Question:​

What is the Catholic Church’s teaching on the belief that Adam and Eve were merely symbols and not literally our first parents?

Answer:​

Pope Pius XII addressed this question in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. He identifies this belief as a “conjectural opinion” and denies the children of the Church the liberty to hold such an opinion. His reason is it’s apparent inconsistency with the transmission of original sin:

It is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own (sec. 37).

It is true that Pius XII’s rejection of “polygenism” (the belief that we descended from multiple sets of first parents) is not infallible. Nevertheless, it is a teaching that carries with it a high degree of magisterial authority.
Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to affirm the belief that Adam and Eve were not mere symbols but literally our first parents:

• It teaches that Eve in some manner was created from Adam (CCC 371).
• It contrasts the first Adam with Christ (CCC 359).
• It refers to Adam and Eve as our “first parents” created in an original state of justice and holiness (CCC 375), which they lost when they sinned (CCC 399-400).
• It identifies Adam as the source of sin in contrast to Christ as the source of grace (CCC 388).
• It affirms St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 5:18 that by one man’s sin all of humanity is affected (CCC 402).
• It teaches that all men are Adam’s descendants and are implicated in his sin (CCC 404).
• It teaches that Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin (CCC 417).

There is no indication in these passages, or in the many other passages where the Catechismreferences Adam and Eve, that the Church believes the biblical Adam and Eve represent a number of our first parents.
See also our tract “Adam, Eve, and Evolution.”

Adam and Eve Were Real People

Pope Pius XII addressed this question in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. He identifies this belief as a “conjectural opinion” and denies the children of the...

www.catholic.com

 

[Michie]

Adam and Eve: Real People​

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

The controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Find out what Catholics believe about it.

www.catholic.com

 

[narnia59]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the gnome research and the meaning of "Y-Chomoamal Adam". (From Wikipedia):
As with "Mitochondrial Eve", the title of "Y-chromosomal Adam" is not permanently fixed to a single individual, but can advance over the course of human history as paternal lineages become extinct.

Estimates of the time when Y-MRCA lived have also shifted as modern knowledge of human ancestry changes. For example, in 2013, the discovery of a previously unknown Y-chromosomal haplogroup was announced,[1] which resulted in a slight adjustment of the estimated age of the human Y-MRCA.[2]

By definition, it is not necessary that the Y-MRCA and the mt-MRCA should have lived at the same time.[3] While estimates as of 2014 suggested the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous,[4] the discovery of the archaic Y-haplogroup has pushed back the estimated age of the Y-MRCA beyond the most likely age of the mt-MRCA. As of 2015, estimates of the age of the Y-MRCA range around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, roughly consistent with the emergence of anatomically modern humans.[5]

Y-chromosomal data taken from a Neanderthal from El Sidrón, Spain, produced a Y-T-MRCA (time to Y-MRCA) of 588,000 years ago for Neanderthal and Homo sapiens patrilineages, dubbed ante Adam, and 275,000 years ago for Y-MRCA.[6]

I have no misunderstanding and I've done a great deal of research and from more significant sources than wikipedia. But, what wikipedia says is not wrong. What exactly do you think this quote proves? MRCA refers to the MOST RECENT common ancestor. So of course as lines die off that person -- the MOST RECENT is going to change. However, if you have a most recent common male ancestor that is a common ancestor to all living people, then their father would also be a common ancestor, as would his father etc.

If you want to get technical about it from a Biblical perspective, Y-chromosomal Adam isn't Adam at all, it's Noah. He would be the MOST RECENT common male ancestor of all living people, but Adam would be the original common parent. And mitochondial Eve would be Eve. And guess what, Eve and Noah did not live at the same time, just like wiki notes -- it is not necessary that the MOST RECENT male and female common ancestor lived at the same time.

Also you can't follow a Y-Chromosomal line if a generation produced only girls (a common enough occurrence) or the sons failed to reproduce at all (also common enough). So you couldn't actually prove any of the things you're claiming using Y-Chomomal research, since we don't know how many Y-Choromone lines we've lost to antiquity.

Nothing gets "broken" in tracing back to Y-chromosomal Adam if a man has all daughters or if a man fails to reproduce. All living males have a Y-chromosome that was directly derived from Y-chromosomal Adam. Guess what -- that means that all females have a father who had a Y-chromosome that was directly derived from Y-chromosomal Adam. Which is why wikipedia makes the correct claim that "Y-chromosomal Adam is the patrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living humans are descended," not from whom all living males are descended.

Although the informal name "Y-chromosomal Adam" is a reference to the biblical Adam, this should not be misconstrued as implying that the bearer of the chromosome was the only human male alive during his time.[7] His other male contemporaries may also have descendants alive today, but not, by definition, through solely patrilineal descent; in other words, none of them have an unbroken male line of descendants (son's son's son's … son) connecting them to currently living people.

Not sure what you think this proves. Nothing in Catholic teaching says that Adam was the only living human male alive during his time, nor does Scripture teach that. The question one should indeed ask is where did Cain's wife come from? Some hard core fundamentalists try to make the claim they had to be Cain's sisters but I challenge you to find anything in official Catholic teaching about that. What Catholic teaching does tell us is that we are all descendants from Adam and Eve. Not that they were the only people around. So yes, there could have been other people and yes, they could have descendants as well, but none of them are a common parent to all living people like Y-chromosomal Adam is.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I have no misunderstanding and I've done a great deal of research and from more significant sources than wikipedia. But, what wikipedia says is not wrong. What exactly do you think this quote proves? MRCA refers to the MOST RECENT common ancestor. So of course as lines die off that person -- the MOST RECENT is going to change. However, if you have a most recent common male ancestor that is a common ancestor to all living people, then their father would also be a common ancestor, as would his father etc.

If you want to get technical about it from a Biblical perspective, Y-chromosomal Adam isn't Adam at all, it's Noah. He would be the MOST RECENT common male ancestor of all living people, but Adam would be the original common parent. And mitochondial Eve would be Eve. And guess what, Eve and Noah did not live at the same time, just like wiki notes -- it is not necessary that the MOST RECENT male and female common ancestor lived at the same time.





Nothing gets "broken" in tracing back to Y-chromosomal Adam if a man has all daughters or if a man fails to reproduce. All living males have a Y-chromosome that was directly derived from Y-chromosomal Adam. Guess what -- that means that all females have a father who had a Y-chromosome that was directly derived from Y-chromosomal Adam. Which is why wikipedia makes the correct claim that "Y-chromosomal Adam is the patrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living humans are descended," not from whom all living males are descended.


Not sure what you think this proves. Nothing in Catholic teaching says that Adam was the only living human male alive during his time, nor does Scripture teach that. The question one should indeed ask is where did Cain's wife come from? Some hard core fundamentalists try to make the claim they had to be Cain's sisters but I challenge you to find anything in official Catholic teaching about that. What Catholic teaching does tell us is that we are all descendants from Adam and Eve. Not that they were the only people around. So yes, there could have been other people and yes, they could have descendants as well, but none of them are a common parent to all living people like Y-chromosomal Adam is.

I'm kinda lost here.

What, exactly, are we debating ?

My only point is this:

You can't use the human gnome to historically prove the existence of any one particular person. You want to claim that the nearest male relative is Noah. Ok,

but the timelines don't match historically with the Bible. And now if you want to claim the Bible is just not correct because, whatever reason, now you are just making my point which is this:

You can't use science to prove the existence of anything in the books written by Moses.

Now, if you want to ask me to believe, as a matter of faith, that somewhere in the history of humanity God instilled 2 people with His grace and that was the start of religiousness, ok fine. But I don't think you can prove it occurred.

Better men then both of us have tried and failed.

And I think the whole Old Testament works much better as a set of parables then history anyway. Especially since most of it likely never happened.

 

[narnia59]

I'm kinda lost here.

What, exactly, are we debating ?

My only point is this:

You can't use the human gnome to historically prove the existence of any one particular person. You want to claim that the nearest male relative is Noah. Ok,

but the timelines don't match historically with the Bible. And now if you want to claim the Bible is just not correct because, whatever reason, now you are just making my point which is this:

You can't use science to prove the existence of anything in the books written by Moses.

Now, if you want to ask me to believe, as a matter of faith, that somewhere in the history of humanity God instilled 2 people with His grace and that was the start of religiousness, ok fine. But I don't think you can prove it occurred.

Better men then both of us have tried and failed.

And I think the whole Old Testament works much better as a set of parables then history anyway. Especially since most of it likely never happened.

You made the claim that the geneology that connects Jesus to Adam is not real. Since all humans have a common male parent, that is a claim that has no basis. We are all connected to a common male parent in our history as science does tell us. Does Scripture tell us every step along the way from that parent to Christ, or just the relevant ones to Jewish history? Probably the latter. But there's no reason to believe the people in the geneology of Christ are not truly his ancestors, and he is absolutely a descendant of our common parents.

The Catholic Church recognizes that there are many different forms of literature in the Old Testament. It's not a book, it's a collection of books and just like there are many different sections in a library (history, poetry, parables etc) there are many different kinds of writings in the Old Testament. That is why the Church does not insist on a literal reading of Genesis to mean a young earth creation occured in 6 days.

Even so, the Church has always insisted that all of humanity has a set of common parents, So is the "timing off" in terms of how many generations go back to a common parent? Quite likely, just like the timing doesn't align with 6 days to create the universe. However, if you have followed the science, the dating of our common parentage also has changed quite a bit and certainly isn't set in stone by science either. And less than a century ago, science claimed we didn't have common parents at all. So there will likely always be questions as to how everything fits together. But, it's safe to stick with the basics of truth -- the Church teaches we all have a set of common parents, and Jesus would be a descendant of them just like we all are.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

You made the claim that the geneology that connects Jesus to Adam is not real.

I did, yes.

Since all humans have a common male parent, that is a claim that has no basis.

I'm sorry that statement is incorrect. While you can make the argument that everyone currently alive can be traced to a common ancestor, you cannot make the claim that every human who ever lived came from a common ancestor. That's what the Wikipedia article is trying to tell you, and that you seem to what to dispute.

I'm not going to dispute it with you further.

We are all connected to a common male parent in our history as science does tell us.

WE are. Not everyone who has ever lived.

Does Scripture tell us every step along the way from that parent to Christ, or just the relevant ones to Jewish history? Probably the latter. But there's no reason to believe the people in the geneology of Christ are not truly his ancestors, and he is absolutely a descendant of our common parents.

There is also not reason to believe there is either. That's kind of the point.

The Catholic Church recognizes that there are many different forms of literature in the Old Testament. It's not a book, it's a collection of books and just like there are many different sections in a library (history, poetry, parables etc) there are many different kinds of writings in the Old Testament. That is why the Church does not insist on a literal reading of Genesis to mean a young earth creation occured in 6 days.

Even so, the Church has always insisted that all of humanity has a set of common parents, So is the "timing off" in terms of how many generations go back to a common parent? Quite likely, just like the timing doesn't align with 6 days to create the universe. However, if you have followed the science, the dating of our common parentage also has changed quite a bit and certainly isn't set in stone by science either. And less than a century ago, science claimed we didn't have common parents at all. So there will likely always be questions as to how everything fits together. But, it's safe to stick with the basics of truth -- the Church teaches we all have a set of common parents, and Jesus would be a descendant of them just like we all are.

Hitchen's razor:

Anything that can be believed without supporting facts can be dismissed with supporting facts.

Like I said: The Church wants me to believe that, as a matter of faith and a sacred mystery, that we have a common set of two parents. Ok.

But let's not pretend that this belief has any basis in history or science.

 

[Michie]

Brinking still.

 

[narnia59]

I did, yes.

I'm sorry that statement is incorrect. While you can make the argument that everyone currently alive can be traced to a common ancestor, you cannot make the claim that every human who ever lived came from a common ancestor. That's what the Wikipedia article is trying to tell you, and that you seem to what to dispute.

I'm not going to dispute it with you further.

WE are. Not everyone who has ever lived.

Yes, everyone who has ever lived. Including Jesus.

The individual currently denoted as Y-chromosomal Adam is a common parent to everyone currently alive, yes. What would happen if Jesus, who lived 2000 years ago was not a descendent of the individual currently known as Y-chromosomal Adam? Wiki explains that:

"Further sampling of Y chromosomes could uncover previously unknown divergent lineages. If this happens, Y-chromosome lineages would converge on an individual who lived further back in time."

It would simply move Y-chromosomal Adam further back in time, and that person would be a common parent to all people living today, and Jesus. Still a common parent that we would have with Christ.

 

[Diamond72]

The Bible teaches that Adam and Eve’s sin brought death into the world, but we know from modern science that the dinosaurs lived and died for millions of years prior to the arrival of Homo sapiens. How do Christians make sense of this?

The focus her is on sin. I have done a study on the remains of people before Adam and Eve. An example is Chedder man going back 10,000 years. Usually these people were killed as an act of violence,

The focus here is on sin. We can look at how people died before Adam and Eve. WE also know the situation with Cain Cain’s words, as recorded in the Bible, were: “Whoever finds me will kill me.” Just who is this "whoever" we read about?


Certainly! Ancient human remains have provided valuable insights into how our ancestors lived and died. Here are some examples:

1. Paranthropus Skullcap (SK 54): A two-million-year-old fossil skullcap from Swartkrans in South Africa shows evidence of predation. It has two small, round holes that match the canine teeth of an ancient leopard. This individual likely fell prey to the leopard, just as modern leopards do today1.
2. Taung Child (Australopithecus africanus): This three-year-old child was seized by an eagle 2.3 million years ago. Puncture marks and depression fractures on the skull resemble those found on eagle prey. Microscopic analysis confirms this, showing scratches from clawed talons1.
3. Turkana Boy (Homo ergaster): Lived in Africa about 1.5 million years ago. His nearly complete skeleton shows no predator or scavenger damage. However, he had a diseased gum, likely leading to septicaemia (blood poisoning)1.
4. Kabwe (Homo heidelbergensis): An individual who lived around 400,000 years ago likely died due to severe tooth decay and gum disease. Dental issues were rare in ancient humans, but this case stands out1.

 

[Lady Bug]

Why would "everyone currently alive" have a different common ancestor than "everyone who has ever lived"?

 

[narnia59]

Why would "everyone currently alive" have a different common ancestor than "everyone who has ever lived"?

They wouldn't.

I think the confusion can occur because when science refers to Y-chromosal Adam, they are generally referring to what they call the MRCA -- the Most Recent Common Ancestor. And the MRCA of everyone alive today isn't necessary a common ancestor of everyone who has ever lived.

So use the lineage outlined in the Bible as an example. The MRCA of everyone alive today would not be Adam, but Noah. Because every other male line that was in existence at the time of the flood got wiped out except for Noah's. Noah is the MRCA (Most Recent) of everyone alive after that time, Adam is the common ancestor of everyone who ever lived.

The MRCA will change as lines die off (no ancestors are produced) or new lines are found we didn't know about before. It changed with the flood, it went from Adam to Noah because certain lines were wiped out. When a line dies off, the MRCA moves forward in history to a more recent time.

But if for example we found a remote trible somewhere in the world and tested their DNA, it could be possible they don't share the same MRCA that has been identified. In that case, we now have to go farther back in time to find the MRCA (Most Recent) common ancestor of everyone alive.

So in theory, the male line that produced Christ could have died off at some point in the past. That would mean he does not share the MRCA (Most Recent) ancestor of everyone alive today. But when we go back into the generations, we would find a common ancestor that links us to Christ.

Hope that all makes sense....

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Why would "everyone currently alive" have a different common ancestor than "everyone who has ever lived"?

Hi Lady:

Like this, for example:

Top line is all the women (on this chart it's women but the same works with men) that lived 100,000 years ago

The bottom line show all the women alive today.

The black lineage of women can is the genetic line that survived 100,000 years of unbroken
All the other colored lineages are genetic lines for people whose genetic line was broken over the last 100,000 years. They still lived, their DNA just isn't present in the modern, present day DNA of humans.

So we all living today have a common female ancestor, but that doesn't mean everyone who ever lived had the same common ancestor.

 

[Diamond72]

If we believe in a literal Adam and Eve, what are we to make of Neanderthals or Homo Erectus?

Many many books could be written about this. So I will try to keep it brief.

Both Neanderthals and modern humans evolved from a common ancestor between 700,000 and 300,000 years ago. God wanted to become a -part of His creation. Remember in chapter one of Genesis 1:26, let us make man in our image. Theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creationism, is the belief that God (or another higher power) used evolution as a tool to create the different species of living creatures on Earth. In this view, God acts and creates through the laws of nature, and religious beliefs can coexist with scientific findings, including evolution. While not a scientific theory itself, theistic evolution seeks to harmonize evolutionary thought with faith, emphasizing that religious beliefs and scientific theories need not contradict each other23.

John 21:25 There are many more things that Jesus did. ​

If all of them were written down, I suppose that not even the world itself would have space for the books that would be written.

Both the Bible and Science talk about a common ancestor. In the Bible Genesis chapter one God made them male and female. In Chapter two God made them man and women and Eve comes from the side of Adam. Chapter one is hunter gather chapter two is food producer and the beginning of civilization. There is no conflict but science does shape our translation and interpretation of the Bible. The Bible does not contradict itself even though the account of man in chapter one is so different from chapter two.

Animals even Neanderthals have a male and a female. Only Humans have a man and a women. The plants and Animals in Eden take a step up with Adam and Eve. The hunting dog now becomes a Sheppard. Look at the German shephard. You do not want to mess with the flock because they can be fierce. Not like a bull dog but they an drive the predictor away from the flock.

I studied science and history long before I studied the Bible, so I do understand that perspective better then the people who only read the chapter on sex in high school. We can get a college or a high school biology book on amazon for $5. The older ones have a chapter that has been revised so you may want to see what chapter that is and what the new more recent information is on that chapter.

Rather than to go on and on, it is better to see what questions people have.

 

[Diamond72]

Top line is all the women (on this chart it's women but the same works with men) that lived 100,000 years ago

The bottom line show all the women alive today.

Eve was the first women. In chapter one you have male and female. This actually began somewhere around 250,000 years ago. Genesis 2:23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” We see this in the name. You cannot have a female without a male and you can not have a woman without a man.

Man and women have been around for 6,000 years (5995) male and female actually go back a long way to algae or what some people call pond scum. This is when the male split into a male and female and we have recombination of the genes.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Bible teaches that Adam and Eve’s sin brought death into the world, but we know from modern science that the dinosaurs lived and died for millions of years prior to the arrival of Homo sapiens. How do Christians make sense of this?

Continued below.

Do Dinosaurs Prove that Death Existed Before the Fall? - St. Paul Center

The Bible teaches that Adam and Eve's sin brought death into the world, but we know from modern science that the dinosaurs lived and died for millions of years prior to the arrival of Homo sapiens. How do Christians make sense of this?

stpaulcenter.com

Actually. Dinos were created with all of the other animals on day 6 of creation.

Science bases its million of years theory on faulty science.