Dinosaurs: Different Theories

[secondeve]

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)!

Makes a great image, don't it? "We will siege your city until aaaaaaagggghhh it's got my arm nooooooooooooo!" *sounds of crunching*

True, there is an Ice Age to fit in. Out of curiosity, do you believe the scientific idea of different ages - Jurassic, Cretateous and so on - with regard to when dinosaurs lived, or did they just live all at the same time? For me, this is something of a sticking point - even if the bones can't be dated with perfect accuracy, the different species are still found in different layers of rock, which denotes that they lived at different times. How might this fit in with all at once prior to flood, and then all dying out soon after?

[Joy in the Journey]

My theory is simple- it's a get-rich-quick scheme created by corporate America ( Toys-R-Us to be precise ) to manufacture and sell at large profit, childrens' novelty items depicting a now extinct species purported to have lived millions of years ago.

Brilliant really- who's going to refute their claims and take away a beloved toy from a child ?

( only the anti-mainstream, uneducated, scientifically inept and fanatical literal fundamentalist Christian who's running a counter-scheme by introducing a 6000 year old Earth/Creation in an attempt to throw out everything man has taught himself over the past hundred years and thus tarnish man's perfect record of knowing everything there is to know...who do they think they are anyway ? )

Cheers,

Tim

[secondeve]

My theory is simple- it's a get-rich-quick scheme created by corporate America ( Toys-R-Us to be precise ) to manufacture and sell at large profit, childrens' novelty items depicting a now extinct species purported to have lived millions of years ago.

Brilliant really- who's going to refute their claims and take away a beloved toy from a child ?

( only the anti-mainstream, uneducated, scientifically inept and fanatical literal fundamentalist Christian who's running a counter-scheme by introducing a 6000 year old Earth/Creation in an attempt to throw out everything man has taught himself over the past hundred years and thus tarnish man's perfect record of knowing everything there is to know...who do they think they are anyway ? )

You know, I can't actually tell if you're being sarcastic or not, which is a little worrying. Some clarification required.

[MrLuke]

Makes a great image, don't it? "We will siege your city until aaaaaaagggghhh it's got my arm nooooooooooooo!" *sounds of crunching*

True, there is an Ice Age to fit in. Out of curiosity, do you believe the scientific idea of different ages - Jurassic, Cretateous and so on - with regard to when dinosaurs lived, or did they just live all at the same time? For me, this is something of a sticking point - even if the bones can't be dated with perfect accuracy, the different species are still found in different layers of rock, which denotes that they lived at different times. How might this fit in with all at once prior to flood, and then all dying out soon after?

Well, again from what I've read on the subject (I read alot heh) the Flood would have caused layers to appear and form alot quicker than what they might natuarally due to the sudden massive amount of water crashing out of the ground and down from the sky shifting alot of sediment and stuff around. But again, I'm not an expert in this area of knowledge of the earth and layers in rocks etc (I'm only a Theology student! )!

[Joy in the Journey]

My theory is simple- it's a get-rich-quick scheme created by corporate America ( Toys-R-Us to be precise ) to manufacture and sell at large profit, childrens' novelty items depicting a now extinct species purported to have lived millions of years ago.

Brilliant really- who's going to refute their claims and take away a beloved toy from a child ?

( only the anti-mainstream, uneducated, scientifically inept and fanatical literal fundamentalist Christian who's running a counter-scheme by introducing a 6000 year old Earth/Creation in an attempt to throw out everything man has taught himself over the past hundred years and thus tarnish man's perfect record of knowing everything there is to know...who do they think they are anyway ? )

You know, I can't actually tell if you're being sarcastic or not, which is a little worrying. Some clarification required.

I am being a bit cheeky, partly. I'm a bit serious as well though

I don't think my theory is any more crazy than what is passed off as "science" these days

"Proof" is in the eye of the beholder

Cheers,

Tim

[secondeve]

Well, again from what I've read on the subject (I read alot heh) the Flood would have caused layers to appear and form alot quicker than what they might natuarally due to the sudden massive amount of water crashing out of the ground and down from the sky shifting alot of sediment and stuff around. But again, I'm not an expert in this area of knowledge of the earth and layers in rocks etc (I'm only a Theology student! )!

Fair enough - but what about the age of the rocks being dated?

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.

I love this one, hear it alot - "Man and dinosaur didnt live together there is no evidence"

for further references to missing evidence see "missing link" and also "transitional species"

What do I believe? - Many dinosaurs were big and scaly. Some were herbivorous, some were omnivores and some fed solely on evolutionists

Firstly, there is evidence that transitional species existed, and given the large amount of surrounding evidence, it is reasonable to presume that the missing link did exist. Man living with dinosaurs, however? Despite how many dinosaur skeletons have been dug up in different layers over the past century or two, nobody has ever found any human bones, refuse, footprints, tools or other sign of habitation to indicate that man lived at the same time. All such evidence is found in strata levels which begin well after the dinosaurs have stopped. Coincidence? Seems just a tad unlikely.

My theory is simple- it's a get-rich-quick scheme created by corporate America ( Toys-R-Us to be precise ) to manufacture and sell at large profit, childrens' novelty items depicting a now extinct species purported to have lived millions of years ago.

Brilliant really- who's going to refute their claims and take away a beloved toy from a child ?

( only the anti-mainstream, uneducated, scientifically inept and fanatical literal fundamentalist Christian who's running a counter-scheme by introducing a 6000 year old Earth/Creation in an attempt to throw out everything man has taught himself over the past hundred years and thus tarnish man's perfect record of knowing everything there is to know...who do they think they are anyway ? )

You know, I can't actually tell if you're being sarcastic or not, which is a little worrying. Some clarification required.

I am being a bit cheeky, partly. I'm a bit serious as well though

I don't think my theory is any more crazy than what is passed off as "science" these days

"Proof" is in the eye of the beholder

Well, here's a glitch for the theory - the first dinosaur bones in the modern era were uncovered in the late 1800's (from memory) - at any case, a very long while before marketing might've got their hands on the idea. The Crystal Palace, I think it's called, in England, was the first park built housing dinosaur statues in the 1900's.

[Joy in the Journey]

Well, here's a glitch for the theory - the first dinosaur bones in the modern era were uncovered in the late 1800's (from memory) - at any case, a very long while before marketing might've got their hands on the idea. The Crystal Palace, I think it's called, in England, was the first park built housing dinosaur statues in the 1900's.

Well shucks! I thought I had all me ducks in row...and here all along I thought is was a global consipacy to inudate the markets and indoctrinate the masses with the biggest lie ever told....after all, all those bright scientists just couldn't be wrong since they all agree with each other No one could be that misguided

That'll teach me to trust the Bible won't it

Cheers,

Tim

[secondeve]

Well, here's a glitch for the theory - the first dinosaur bones in the modern era were uncovered in the late 1800's (from memory) - at any case, a very long while before marketing might've got their hands on the idea. The Crystal Palace, I think it's called, in England, was the first park built housing dinosaur statues in the 1900's.

Well shucks! I thought I had all me ducks in row...and here all along I thought is was a global consipacy to inudate the markets and indoctrinate the masses with the biggest lie ever told....after all, all those bright scientists just couldn't be wrong since they all agree with each other No one could be that misguided

That'll teach me to trust the Bible won't it

Come on, I started this as a serious thread. Scientists don't all agree with each other - often, they disagree quite loudly - and I'm sure you know that. Do you have any actual belief in dinosaurs? Do you really think they didn't exist? At least one semi-genuine response would be appreciated.

[Joy in the Journey]

Come on, I started this as a serious thread. Scientists don't all agree with each other - often, they disagree quite loudly - and I'm sure you know that. Do you have any actual belief in dinosaurs? Do you really think they didn't exist? At least one semi-genuine response would be appreciated.

Alright, in all fairness I'm sorry for having a run on you mate.

To answer your questions, I do believe there were animals that simply were not able to cope with the climate changes after the Flood and they are now, sadly extinct. Do I think there were all the dinosaurs we see in museums and books ? I am cautious as to how someone can find a chip of a tooth and construct an entire animal out of it

And as a Christian, I choose to believe the Bible over man- regardless of how silly it makes me look. I do know for a fact that the Bible says that Adam, the first man was created 6000 years ago and there was no death before he sinned. Just the other day I read where they claim to have found a skull of a child that is said to be 3 million years old- someone is not telling the truth here...and I know it's not the Bible that's wrong- therefore if science is wrong about that, they can surely be wrong about other things as well- and they are....but that's a whole different discussion!

So in short, I do believe there were animals, perhaps large reptile like creatures that have since died out...but it was less than 6000 years ago that this happened.

Cheers,

Tim

[secondeve]

Alright, in all fairness I'm sorry for having a run on you mate.

To answer your questions, I do believe there were animals that simply were not able to cope with the climate changes after the Flood and they are now, sadly extinct. Do I think there were all the dinosaurs we see in museums and books ? I am cautious as to how someone can find a chip of a tooth and construct an entire animal out of it

And as a Christian, I choose to believe the Bible over man- regardless of how silly it makes me look. I do know for a fact that the Bible says that Adam, the first man was created 6000 years ago and there was no death before he sinned. Just the other day I read where they claim to have found a skull of a child that is said to be 3 million years old- someone is not telling the truth here...and I know it's not the Bible that's wrong- therefore if science is wrong about that, they can surely be wrong about other things as well- and they are....but that's a whole different discussion!

So in short, I do believe there were animals, perhaps large reptile like creatures that have since died out...but it was less than 6000 years ago that this happened.

Thank you for your response

I'd be interested to know exactly how many dinosaurs have been recreated from how much evidence - I don't doubt that a few are probably shonky or inaccurate, but enough remains have been found otherwise for me to be sure that these creatures existed.

I'm a bit curious about your belief in this respect - specifically, with regard to the ancient skull. It seems to me like there must be more to your rejection of the dating than simple faith in the Bible - perhaps I'm wrong, but I would like to understand. I find it difficult to wrap my head around the idea that you might reject the claim out of hand just because, at first glance, it seems to oppose what you already think is true. I have heard Christians defend themselves against athiests, with reason, by pointing out that they don't believe in God because they are stupid: they have good, intelligent, heart-felt, well-researched reasons for doing so. Similarly, however, the same is true of scientists and those who believe in them. While it is true in both examples that there are some who believe a given theory without thought, this is not true of everybody or even the majority.

What I am saying is that scientists, and the people who believe in science, have reasons for doing so: even if they are, in the end, telling lies or have misunderstood their sources, it does not pay, nor is it entirely reasonable, to assume this. It seems fair to me to doubt the validity of the claim of a 3 million year old skull, but only if you have looked at the way in which it was dated, how and where it was found, why people give it the age they do, and found these explanations lacking. If truth is your objective - even if you believe that the Bible is truth, and that you have found it already - then these questions need to be met with more than dismissal. If they are false, then your research can uncover nothing harmful; if they are true, then, if truth is your object, you are on the way to finding it.

Ultimately, I believe, no matter what or who we trust or put faith in, our staunchest belief is always, by default, in ourselves: in our individual ability to assess information, to comprehend our experiences, to think, to be impartial, and to discern truth from fiction. More than God or science, it is people that we trust: that we have got it right, and that those who inform us have got it right, too. Because of this, it never seems reasonable to me to assume that the beliefs we have are correct, without question. We do not have faith unless some information or experience has convinced us that there is a reason to have faith: and because we are imperfect beings who do not always understand ourselves or our experiences, let alone the wider world, it seems dangerous not to question this reason along with everything else.

Yes, scientists make mistakes - but the aim of science, in one respect, is to question what is assumed to be true, not with the intention of proving it false (although this can be a consequence) but of making sure that it is true, and not just believed to be so. Often, I've seen Christians take this as a weakness of science: they don't see how a given discipline can have any intellectual credibility or integrity if it admits to its own errors. But the same might be said of Christians and the Bible: just because the understanding is imperfect in some areas, does not mean there is no understanding to be had in any area, period.

That was a bit long-winded, for which I apologise, but I am asking genuine questions. Have you researched the dating of the skull, or just left it as is?