Dinosaurs: Different Theories

[secondeve]

There's a show airing in Australia at the moment called Prehistoric Park - it's a look at dinosaurs in the fictional context of people with a time-machine capturing the odd ancient beastie and bringing it to a kind of zoo/nature reserve in the present. It made me think. Since I've been on Worthy, I've heard a lot of different opinions about dinosaurs. Excluding those Christians who believe in evolution, the opinions I've come across can be roughly grouped into the following categories:

1. Dinosaurs existed and died out during a period of time accounted for in the very opening chapters of Genesis, when the world is still being created. While this series of events is not stated explicitly, neither is it flatly denied or prohibited by the text, and is therefore possibly true.

2. Dinosaurs were created in the Garden, and lived alongside early man, i.e Adam and Eve and their direct-line descendants. Afterwards, they were killed in the flood. This is strictly in keeping with the Biblical word, that all animals were created at a certain point. They went on the Ark with Noah, and only died out later.

3. The same as 2, except that instead of being saved, the dinosaurs died in the Flood. This makes a little more sense scientifically, but is a Biblical compromise, as the Bible states clearly that Noah rescued one male and one female of every animal.

4. Dinosaurs never existed. All evidence which points to their existence is either fradulent or misunderstood by scientists. If any such creatures did exist, they were most likely demons as spoken of in the Bible.

As you can see, these are four pretty diverse opinions. As an athiest who believes in evolution - and that the dinosaurs existed millions of years before humans - they are all pretty difficult options to countenance. 1 is the most compatible scenario in scientific terms, but still leaves Biblical problems. As a theory, it is compatible with the Bible only insofar as it is not directly contradicted. In my mind, this is a similar belief to thinking that (for example) King David had a favourite cat called Yod. Cats existed at the time in the right area, and the Bible does not explicitly say that King David didn't have a cat called Yod, but other than a lack of Biblical denial, there is no evidence to support such a belief. Going back to the dinosaurs, 1 is also problematic for non-believers to accept because, as a belief, it tends to align closely with a literal reading of Genesis re the creation of man. This is not a direct objection, but it does make for an odd pairing from a secular point of view.

2 is very difficult. Despite the existence of a few footprints now known to be hoaxes, there is no fossil evidence whatsoever to show that man lived alongside dinosaurs. There is the added problem of dating, as this theory means that not a single radio-carbon dated dinosaur fossil has ever been accurately diagnosed - even if you think the method is flawed, this is such a massive incidence of inaccuracy that it is difficult to contemplate why it has not subsequently been abandoned. Most importantly, however, the logistics do not seem to add up. Watching Prehistoric Park, or Jurassic Park, or Walking with Donosaurs, or any other movie or program focusing on dinosaurs, the idea of man managing to survive and build civilisations with these monsters plaguing the sky, land and sea is incredible to the point of disbelief. There are Biblical references to Leviathan and Behemoth, but it seems unlikely that these two creatures should be so exceptional and so singled out as extraordinary if giant crocodiles, gigantianosaurus and brachiosaurus were wandering around anyway. Smaller, mammalian predators, like lions and wolves, would hardly have stood a chance: they would have been food themselves. Why would the Bible mention that lions were dangerous foes, but not the more obvious, bigger and more deadly carnivores? Speaking for myself, this is the hardest of all theories to countenance.

3 is a Biblical contradiction: it means that the dinosaurs didn't survive the flood, despite Noah's best efforts and his instructions. Before this, it still involves the difficulties of man and dinosaur living together. Nonetheless, it provides a reason for their absence from the world and later Biblical events which 2 does not.

4 seems blatantly false. Even if one is skeptical of the ages to which dinosaur bones are dated, or of the ability of archaeologists and palentologists to put skeletons together, there are still hundreds of fossils which have been found whole and assembled, preserved in bogs or rock strata. There is a slim possibility that they were demons, but this, to my mind, requires great imagination. Demons such as Lucifer were once angels; and angels are always described Biblically as being, if not human, then humanoid, give or take radiance and a certain number of wings. From where else could such bones come?

So. Having said all that, I'm curious to see if people think I have characterised these positions - exluding my own opinions - with any kind of accuracy; also, to hear which version you believe and why, or if there's another stance I've not listed here. Essentially, though, it seems to me that no matter your opinions, dinosaurs are always going to be at least a little problematic to believers. Or do you disagree?

Edited September 25, 2006 by secondeve

[carrielles]

I loe to talk about dinosaurs. I think they were big lizards in the garden. I think they were on the ark ( babies) and I think men killed and ate them both in land and in the seas. They were called dragons back then. if you want more info you can look up drdino.com or other noteable christian scientists. There is some great evidence on recent dinosaur bone discoveries where they are frozen and not petrified!!! found in antartica. Its a great way to discuss how young this earth really is and how all creation points to the Lord.

[secondeve]

I loe to talk about dinosaurs. I think they were big lizards in the garden. I think they were on the ark ( babies) and I think men killed and ate them both in land and in the seas. They were called dragons back then. if you want more info you can look up drdino.com or other noteable christian scientists. There is some great evidence on recent dinosaur bone discoveries where they are frozen and not petrified!!! found in antartica. Its a great way to discuss how young this earth really is and how all creation points to the Lord.

I'm a bit confused by your theory. I understand your belief that dinosaurs were in the garden and that baby dinosaurs or hatchlings were put on the ark, but I can't see how men killing and eating them fits in, especially if they were called dragons at the same time. How could someone with early spears and bows kill a diplodocus or an allosaur? As for the dragon part: lots of cultures have a kind of dragon in them - which I think is due in part to the fact that people in our own century and the last one weren't the first humans to dig up dinosaur bones - but I can't think of a single culture which references dragons as a ready source of food. St George supposedly killed a dragon - a very similar myth to Hermes saving Andromeda from a monster in Greek legend - but that doesn't seem to equate to a standard of men killing dragons all the time. They are consistently described as being hard to kill - also, and more importantly, most dragons are described either as winged, or being able to fly, which dinosaurs generally weren't, with the exception of rhamphoryncus, queztocoatl and a few others. I'm also a little unsure about the reference to frozen dinosaur bones; I don't see how this is evidence for a young Earth, given climate change, continental drift and the idea of Pangaea.

Thanks for answering!

[MrLuke]

I think they were on the ark ( babies)

!! How stupid I am! Here I was, wondering how an old geezer could have built a boat big enough to hold two specimens of all the animals of our planet, some as huge as elephants or dinosaurs, and then someone comes on this forum and gives me the solution out of the blue... THEY WERE BABIES!! It's obvious that while 1.75 million couples of living beings could not have fit if they were adults. Thank you, carrielles!!

Ok there's no need for cendesending sarcasm, this started as a mature and serious thread so lets try and at least keep it that way, shall we?

As for dinosaurs.. from what I've read and understood on the subject of them being on the Ark and after, the flood would have caused some major climate effects to happen in which dinosaurs and possibly other animals could adapt to soon enough to survive properly - making them weak and few in number to eventual extinction (and then possible food supply for people if they pick up the carcases!).

I think this train of thought about dinosaurs may be on the drdino.com site also, I'm not sure.

[secondeve]

As for dinosaurs.. from what I've read and understood on the subject of them being on the Ark and after, the flood would have caused some major climate effects to happen in which dinosaurs and possibly other animals could adapt to soon enough to survive properly - making them weak and few in number to eventual extinction (and then possible food supply for people if they pick up the carcases!).

I think this train of thought about dinosaurs may be on the drdino.com site also, I'm not sure.

That's an interesting theory, that the flood was the source of climate change which killed the dinosaurs. What are your thoughts on how they could have lived alongside man before then?

[MrLuke]

As for dinosaurs.. from what I've read and understood on the subject of them being on the Ark and after, the flood would have caused some major climate effects to happen in which dinosaurs and possibly other animals could adapt to soon enough to survive properly - making them weak and few in number to eventual extinction (and then possible food supply for people if they pick up the carcases!).

I think this train of thought about dinosaurs may be on the drdino.com site also, I'm not sure.

That's an interesting theory, that the flood was the source of climate change which killed the dinosaurs. What are your thoughts on how they could have lived alongside man before then?

Hmm, well just off the top of my head.. maybe they were mainly congregated in other parts of the world and since mankind would be few in number they all just lived separately elsewhere in relative safety? Just an idea.

[secondeve]

As for dinosaurs.. from what I've read and understood on the subject of them being on the Ark and after, the flood would have caused some major climate effects to happen in which dinosaurs and possibly other animals could adapt to soon enough to survive properly - making them weak and few in number to eventual extinction (and then possible food supply for people if they pick up the carcases!).

I think this train of thought about dinosaurs may be on the drdino.com site also, I'm not sure.

That's an interesting theory, that the flood was the source of climate change which killed the dinosaurs. What are your thoughts on how they could have lived alongside man before then?

Hmm, well just off the top of my head.. maybe they were mainly congregated in other parts of the world and since mankind would be few in number they all just lived separately elsewhere in relative safety? Just an idea.

That's a thought, but I wonder if it corresponds to the fossil record? As I understand it, dinosaur remains have been found on every continent and in a great number of places. The reason why I have problems with men and dinosaurs living together, apart from the scientific stance that this couldn't have happened anyway, is the logistics of it. Prior to the flood, the Bible gives a strong impression of nomadic humans - historically, it would be reasonable to suppose that, even if there were some cities, most people would have lived out in the open. All it would take would be one herd of brachiosaurs, one T-Rex in the wrong place, and there would have been absolute chaos. How could there have been stable farming or trade routes if dinosaurs could pose such a threat? It seems a little convenient that all the dinosaurs would be in one place, especially as we know that many species lived (if you believe the scientsits) hundreds of years apart, in different corners of the Earth. More importantly, if God made man to rule over all other animals, why would he create such patently and obviously ungovernable creatures? Men can hunt lions to show their bravery, but how could they hunt dinosaurs?

[MrLuke]

{snip}

Luke wrote:

Hmm, well just off the top of my head.. maybe they were mainly congregated in other parts of the world and since mankind would be few in number they all just lived separately elsewhere in relative safety? Just an idea.

That's a thought, but I wonder if it corresponds to the fossil record? As I understand it, dinosaur remains have been found on every continent and in a great number of places. The reason why I have problems with men and dinosaurs living together, apart from the scientific stance that this couldn't have happened anyway, is the logistics of it. Prior to the flood, the Bible gives a strong impression of nomadic humans - historically, it would be reasonable to suppose that, even if there were some cities, most people would have lived out in the open. All it would take would be one herd of brachiosaurs, one T-Rex in the wrong place, and there would have been absolute chaos. How could there have been stable farming or trade routes if dinosaurs could pose such a threat? It seems a little convenient that all the dinosaurs would be in one place, especially as we know that many species lived (if you believe the scientsits) hundreds of years apart, in different corners of the Earth. More importantly, if God made man to rule over all other animals, why would he create such patently and obviously ungovernable creatures? Men can hunt lions to show their bravery, but how could they hunt dinosaurs?

Well like I said, it was only off the top of my head so I didn't put a great deal of thought into it!

Hm you do pose some good points though, which unless God specifically protected people from the creatures so they could establish themselves properly, I can't really think of much else to say right now.

Who knows, maybe dinosaurs kept in packs and didn't attack randomly unless provoked by people? Don't forget though, OT only deals mainly with God's chosen nation and how things happened to establish God's people - maybe there were plenty of dinosaur related deaths that just aren't recorded in the Bible because they are nothing to do with the overall message that is being put across with Israel's history etc?

[secondeve]

Well like I said, it was only off the top of my head so I didn't put a great deal of thought into it!

Hm you do pose some good points though, which unless God specifically protected people from the creatures so they could establish themselves properly, I can't really think of much else to say right now.

Who knows, maybe dinosaurs kept in packs and didn't attack randomly unless provoked by people? Don't forget though, OT only deals mainly with God's chosen nation and how things happened to establish God's people - maybe there were plenty of dinosaur related deaths that just aren't recorded in the Bible because they are nothing to do with the overall message that is being put across with Israel's history etc?

That's possible, too - that the Bible just doesn't need to mention it. Then again, if it were at all frequent, it seems like it would be sure to crop up as an incident at least once, perhaps in Kings or Judges, where such-and-such a person finds blah caravan or farm destroyed in the course of a journey, or so-and-so is angry because a dinosaur stole their goats or chased lions into their area. Or even that the citizens were confined behind the city walls for a few days because a big meat-eater was outside them. Actually, there's a thought: encamped armies sieging cities would surely attract predators - not small ones who'd get scared away by fire, but big ones who didn't care. Granted the armour would make the men a little chewy, but they'd be all in one place, and lots of them. And then there's the Romans, who had a deep and disturbing love of putting large and violent animals in an arena with gladiators, slaves, women, dwarfs and just about anything else that could hold a sword. Even if they couldn't catch a big dino, there's a chance that a few brave men with a net could get one of the smaller meat-eaters or omnivores, or even a medium-sized or baby plant-eater that would look vicious enough to attract a crowd. Just a thought

[MrLuke]

That's possible, too - that the Bible just doesn't need to mention it. Then again, if it were at all frequent, it seems like it would be sure to crop up as an incident at least once, perhaps in Kings or Judges, where such-and-such a person finds blah caravan or farm destroyed in the course of a journey, or so-and-so is angry because a dinosaur stole their goats or chased lions into their area. Or even that the citizens were confined behind the city walls for a few days because a big meat-eater was outside them. Actually, there's a thought: encamped armies sieging cities would surely attract predators - not small ones who'd get scared away by fire, but big ones who didn't care. Granted the armour would make the men a little chewy, but they'd be all in one place, and lots of them. And then there's the Romans, who had a deep and disturbing love of putting large and violent animals in an arena with gladiators, slaves, women, dwarfs and just about anything else that could hold a sword. Even if they couldn't catch a big dino, there's a chance that a few brave men with a net could get one of the smaller meat-eaters or omnivores, or even a medium-sized or baby plant-eater that would look vicious enough to attract a crowd. Just a thought

Hehe as I read that I could just imagine an ancient battle taking place, when suddenly from over the hills comes a big flock of hungry dinosaurs trampling and eating all the warriors and soldiers!

But on a slightly more serious note; if, going by the theory I presented where the climate changed dramatically thus killing off animals, then by the time Kings or Judges came about there would probably be little to no big dinosaurs around - especially by the time the Romans were playing their "fun" animal games!

Don't forget, there's an Ice Age to fit in here too somewhere! Which, from what I can remember (not looked into any of this stuff in a long while now) there is no mention of snow/ice until Job. Something I read once on this suggested along the lines of the climate shift idea from the flood causing new season conditions to develop - such as winter but in the extreme directly after the flood waters went down where ice and snow started to fall gradually over different parts of the planet. If that's true and/or plausible, then that could and probably would severly damage some species and limit their growth multiplicity!

I'll try and find the websites or magazines/books I originally read about this in.

For now though, I'm off to bed - lot of travelling to do tomorrow back to university for my 2nd year (woo!) so I shall add some more input when I can (and hopefully will have found the original sources to where I read about this stuff)!