Dinosaurs and the Bible

So I was watching Jurassic Park earlier and that got me thinking about how dinosaurs are treated in Scripture.

I know there’s some mention of dinosaur-like creatures in the Old Testament and then I did some research. Or rather, I googled it and found out that there are Christians who believe dinosaurs may have co-existed with humans at some point and that the earth is only 5000 years old and that carbon dating apparently has some huge flaw.

And now I’m just confused and wondering how exactly can we reconcile the ideas we know about dinosaurs (they lived 65 million years ago and were probably wiped out by a comet or something) and the Bible (the Creation story).

Carbon dating perhaps has huge flaws, I’m not qualified to qualify, but not that** huge.

Don’t let yourself be troubled, I’m pretty positive the gap between the 1st human/hominid (human-like but with no soul, that’s a theory BTW) and the very last dinosaur is 10s of millions of years. Wooly mammoths went extinct much more recently and did coexist with humans. About 2 weeks ago I watched a riveting docu-drama that related the chain of cataclysms (literally a chain reaction started by a meteorite) that brought about the total anihilation of the dinosaur race. Catholics are bound to believe that we all share common ancestors in Adam and Eve, that they were the 1st humans, and that the whole universe (time+matter) was created by God. If you acknowledge these two premises, I believe you’re free to believe pretty much what you want regarding evolution.

I seriously doubt dinosaurs have anything to do with any of the monstrous creatures mentioned in the Bible, except perhaps extremely remotely in terms of found dinosaur fossils possibly influencing the collective imagination of the culture in which the Bible was written.

The evidence appears to be very solid that the last dinosaurs, unless you count birds, died about 64-65 million years before the first humans. It now seems that at least one non-avian species survived about half a million years (if I recall correctly) after the extinction of most of them following an asteroid impact about 65 million years ago, and it’s possible that it or some other species survived much longer and simply did not leave any fossils that we have discovered so far, but I wouldn’t put much stock into theories that they survived into historical times.

What does finding dinosaurs in the Bible have to do with our salvation?

Yes, it’s the wrong forum. I assume an honest mistake.

As far as I know all that the Church commands us to believe about the creation story is that God created everything, no matter his means of doing it. Adam and Eve were real people(It’s actually been scientifically proven that every human has a common female and male ancestor-and their estimated lifespans overlap), that they committed the original sin, and we inherit it. Honestly taking the creation story literally makes no sense to me because the “days” couldn’t possible be the same concept of “days” we have, based on the sun and the moon, when the sun and moon weren’t created until the fourth day :shrug:
And I don’t know if this is true or not, but I have heard that there are actually depictions of dinosaurs by ancient civilizations, so maybe it’s possible some of them made it into that time period, and that’s how we got the ideas of dragons? Seems a little far fetched to me though lol.

Yeah, I know it’s not really a matter of life and death if I don’t know the answer lol. It’s just confusing to me that it was never really explained to me properly. And the creation story doesn’t make any specific references to dinosaurs…are we to believe he created them along with humans and then destroyed them at some point?

If anyone knows a better forum to ask, please let me know!

Either all of the Bible is true or only parts of it. It is very common here to ask this question. Why? To attempt to prove that those Catholics who question science must be ridiculed. There is ancient but less than a million years old, evidence that man saw dinosaurs. The word dinosaur didn’t exist until 1842. Also, there are certainly very good reasons to question how things occurred.

Salvation-wise – is God capable of ordering Creation in any way He chooses? Did Jesus actually raise the dead, give sight to the blind and cleanse the lepers without science or technology? Or calm the wind and waves by verbal command? Some people say the Bible is not a science book. OK. Then the same people attempt to treat it exactly like a science book. As Catholics, we need to know that a certain belief system requires zero intervention from God in the creation of life.

Do you honestly believe that everything went from primitive to complex gradually and fortuitous pathways developed after certain changes in the environment?

sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711151453.htm

Peace and God Bless,
Ed

The universe is 13.7 billion years old apparently. The planet is about 7 billion years old. Genesis’ creation stories [there are two] are metaphor and symbolism used to explain God’s amazing creation of all to a barely literate people. They were goat herders and nomads living thousands of years ago before science as we kow it existed. If God told them “Oh yeah, there was like nothing, and then I caused the Big Bang and then evolution…” they’d think that was nonsense!

Evolution enabled all sorts of creatures to exist before us. Including dinosaurs. Why God created them? Who knows. But they existed, and never existed along side man. Evolution progressed to them from single celled beings, and then we showed up. Think of Adam and Eve as symbols for the first man and woman who had immortal souls and were aware of God and rebelled against him.

Gallilo stated “I do not beleive the same God who endowed us with sense and reason intended us to forego their use” or words to the effect. Science may not conclusively prove evolution yet, but it does prove that the planet is not 6000 years old. Its offensive to the intellects God gave us, and to God himself to beleive a story told to people who were rummaging around a desert 3000 years ago.

As an avid studier of dragons in both popular fantasy and ancient mythology, I feel I must step in.

Dragons in ancient myths have been used more to represent forces of nature than actual creatures. In the East, their snake-like form has been compared to rivers. In the middle east, creatures like Tiamat have also been used in a similarly symbolic manner.

As far as western medieval folklore is concerned, things get even more unscientific. Please know that when you’re talking about western dragons, you’re talking about a monster that could very well take out an entire U.S. army base by itself. You’re talking about a beast with scales harder than steel, highly resilient to fire, has strength to topple buildings, and a breath weapon that is just not physically and anatomically possible.

There is contemporary evidence that man sees dinosaurs. I saw one fly by my window this morning. There are no reliable reports of non-avian dinosaurs still surviving. Even if there were, it would be interesting but not have much effect on evolutionary biology. Sharks are a lot older than dinosaurs, yet evolution has no problem with living sharks. Scientists thought Coelacanths went extinct about the same time as the non-avian dinosaurs, in the late Cretaceous. Finding a new living species of Coelacanth was exciting, but had a minimal effect on evolution. Finding a living non-avian dinosaur would have a similar minimal effect.

Some creationists’ lack of understanding of evolution leads them into this error. Evolution says that organisms are descended from other organisms. Finding a living dinosaur is not a problem because we have older dinosaurs from which it could have descended – as with Coelacanths. If we found a dinosaur in the Precambrian, then that would be a huge problem because there is nothing in the Precambrian from which a dinosaur could have descended. All the ancestors of dinosaurs came later. Living fossils are not a problem, we have lots of them. Dinosaurs before the Devonian would be a huge problem.

Do you honestly believe that everything went from primitive to complex gradually and fortuitous pathways developed after certain changes in the environment?

No, I don’t. Your short description of evolution leaves out natural selection. Any description of evolution that leaves out natural selection is incomplete, and of no real relevance.

rossum

It is also worth pointing out that Western dragons are hexapods, they have six limbs: four legs and two wings. No dinosaur had six limbs. A Wyvern only has four limbs: two wings and two legs. It is possible that Wyverns were based on finding a reasonably complete skeleton of a large Pterosaur.

Some dinosaur footprints do look like the prints of very large birds, hence possibly Rocs, Thunderbirds and others. Our ancestors could find fossils and speculate about what they were.

rossum

That has been repeated here many times and boils down they “were too stupid” to understand anything as we do regarding Creation. Galileo has become a secular patron saint. Here is what the Church tells us:

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"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).”

God could easily have told those barely literate people that: “In ages long past, men looked like animals and lived like animals, but over long ages, man gradually changed and became the men you are today.” No need for physics, chemistry, DNA and all the rest.

Peace,
Ed

Would it be correct to say that Adam was not the first man per se but that he was the first man to be infused with a God-given, immortal soul? And that distinction made him quintessentially different from other fellow men who may have lived in his day and age?

According to what the Church teaches, no. There is certainly no scientific basis for this idea since science cannot study the soul or anything supernatural.

Peace,
Ed

I wonder what you think about the following, with regard to evolution and also the idea of a being of human form without a soul.

One of our Dogmas of faith is that Mary is THE Immaculate conception i.e. the only Immaculate conception. For either of the above ideas to be true the Immaculate conception would have to be false, because Adam and Eve would have to have been immaculately conceived also, thus making Mary AN Immaculate conception instead of THE Immaculate conception.

One thing that some have said in opposition to what I have said above is that Jesus was an Immaculate conception, but obviously not, as he was not conceived, he assumed human form.

I look forward to hearing anyones thoughts on the matter.

God created the earth in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. 1 day is like a thousand years to the Lord 2 peter 3:8.The point is, God gave the the world 6 days to be evil from Adam and Eve till he returns, then he gives us a 7th day or as Rev 20 puts it a thousand year rein of peace from the devils that roam the earth. So, yes the Universe was created in 6000 years, and God rested on the 7th day or 1000 years. God rode the Brontosaurus, walked with the raptor, flew on a pterodactyl, and tamed T-Rex. :thumbsup: :smiley:

Recent Dinosaurs in the Amazon News Report

Man did coexist with the dinosaurs! Haven’t you seen ‘The Flintstones’ ? :shrug:

Sorry, I just had to get that out.:o

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.