Dinosaurs – The Image of God?

[ugmug]

Dinosaurs – The Image of God?

The question of prehistoric dinosaurs has always been a stumbling block for many people who doubt the validity of religion. How could the neanderthal man fit in with the biblical record of man's creation by God. I'll present my hypothesis as to how prehistoric man fits in with a belief in a God created man.

The beginning, as always, begins with Satan. Satan is the focal point of man's downfall. The interaction between man and Satan in the Garden of Eden revealed Satan's sin, a hatred for God. This we know, man was created in God's image. That fact alone should have garnered some respect and reverence from Satan and put man off limits in the Garden of Eden, but it didn't. Satan had such a hatred for God that man, created in God's image, only enticed Satan to do harm to him. By doing harm to man Satan embellished his hatred for God. Satan knew that he could not do any harm directly to God himself therefore he turned his hate towards man who now carried God's image.

Satan's hatred for God, as expressed by Satan luring man to sin in the Garden of Eden, was not the first instance of Satan's hatred towards God. This same hatred was expressed towards prehistoric man. God created the dinosaurs and the environment that sustained them. Why?

God is a creator and up until God's creation of this universe there has been no evidence that God could destroy anything, or that he had any desire to destroy anything he created. In effect Satan only saw God creating, never destroying. So when sin entered Satan, pride that led to his hatred for God, Satan feared no harsh judgments from God.

When God created this universe and then created the harsh environment of the dinosaurs down here on earth, God was demonstrating to Satan the other side of his righteous character, the harsh reality of judgment for anyone embellishing sin. When Satan looked upon this world he saw death and destruction for the very first time.

God created prehistoric life on earth to demonstrate death so life had to be evolutionary, all life changed over time. What is important to note is that at the end of that evolutionary journey you had the emergence of neanderthal man. This result confirmed God's involvement in all life on earth such that all life evolved into the image of God, ie, neanderthal man.

When Satan saw the emergence of prehistoric man from the evolutionary process he plotted to destroy him. Satan didn't see death on earth as a warning from God not to sin but an opportunity to use it against God himself. Satan saw his first chance to express his hatred for God by destroying God's lookalike, neanderthal man.

Satan wouldn't directly destroy neanderthal man but instead would let the natural cosmic forces of an asteroid do it. As we know this asteroid did wipe out prehistoric man which allowed Satan to hide behind the destructive power of the natural forces so as to conceal his involvement. He hid behind this asteroid (that he directed towards earth to wipe out prehistoric man) in the same way he hid himself in the Garden of Eden when he appeared to Eve as a serpent.

God knew Satan destroyed neanderthal man out of his hatred for God, but of course God had no witnesses. Without a witness any judgment against Satan by God would become God accusing someone of a sin without any visible or recorded evidence. God would need a 3rd party witness before his righteous character would be upheld. That witness was man created in the Garden of Eden.

God created a man in his image to be a witness to any of Satan's acts of hatred. This time man was not created from an evolutionary process that evolved into the image of God. Man was created as a separate entity directly into the image of God, disconnected from the evolutionary process, and unlike neanderthal man was given a spirit to go along with his flesh. God created the second instance of man from the dust of the earth and this time he had a spirit imparted into him from God's own breath, the breath of life. God now had a witness to any of Satan's misdeeds.

So here we have man created in God's image that would reveal Satan's hatred for God, yet again. Man was serving as a witness to any act of Satan's hatred for God. Created man was now being called upon to faithfully and honestly become a witness to anything Satan tried to do to him. Which is why man was given his own spirit from God so any recollection of Satan's misdeeds will be above reproach. The stage was now set for Satan's downfall. But of course man stumbled into Satan's downfall as well.

God is a righteous God so God was prevented by his own holy character from creating a 'trap' for Satan that would trick him into sinning. Instead God created man in the Garden of Eden and gave him the commandment not to sin, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Since man was given God's own image, God was in effect giving himself the commandment not to sin. Satan now saw his chance, not only to make man (God's image) sin, but show that God himself, perhaps, is capable of giving into sin.

While man was ignorant of the concept of death, Satan wasn't. Satan saw death abound with prehistoric evolutionary life of the dinosaurs. The forbidden tree was just like all other trees so there was no external mysterious desire that man could not have satisfied elsewhere. Man had to be tricked into sin and Satan could not stop himself from providing man with the impetuous to sin.

Just think, God the creator of everything would not be so foolish as to create anything that could be used against him to effect his own downfall. Satan already knew this. Satan's hatred for God could not be manifested in any direct confrontation with God. But God also knew the heart of Satan and his festering hatred. So instead of directly confronting Satan to reveal this inner hatred for God. God created a surrogate image of himself for Satan to express his sinful feelings of hate against, man.

God created man in his image just so Satan would have a chance to show his disdain and hatred for God without God's omnipotence and deity hindering him. God was going to expose Satan's innermost feelings towards his creator.

As we now know Satan made his move in the Garden of Eden to bring down man and throw doubt on God's perfection. But of course we also know that Satan had to disguise himself to bring about man's eventual downfall. Satan saw death for the first time with prehistoric life of the dinosaur era and eagerly waited to see if God would, and could, bring death upon his own creation, his own image, for their sin.

After his deceit Satan stuck around waiting to see Adam and Eve die just to make sure God would carry through with his judgment. What Satan didn't expect was that God would delay man's death so he could offer him salvation first.

What transpired after man's sin caught Satan unaware. Satan didn't realize that once man was given dominion over this world, and when man sinned, all of creation became sin as well and suffered the same horrible result, death, along with man. Satan was now part of this world disguised as a serpent when man sinned, and so Satan was included in man's sin as well.

Man and Satan were now both sinful and God revealed, once and for all, all of the festering hatred Satan had for God. By God creating man in his own image Satan now had a target that would give him some way to express his true feelings of hatred towards God. Satan took full advantage of this opportunity and brought man, God's image, to the brink of its own destruction. Satan was going to force God to destroy himself (man with his image) as the perfect show of God's own righteousness. (We encounter the same thing today as evil tries to use democracy to destroy democracy itself through willful and rampant cultural and legislative immorality)

It is interesting to note that Satan didn't lead man to the tree of life where man would gain life eternal. But instead Satan led man to the tree that was going to cause his death, the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good an evil. It is clear that the events in the Garden of Eden were not only a test for Satan to reveal his hatred for God but were a chance for his own redemption as well. Satan could have given up his hatred for God and not caused man to sin but instead lead man to the tree of life. But Satan choose to give in to his hatred and pride and perpetrate his devious intentions against God through man.

I believe that both man's and woman's existence in the Garden of Eden was temporal. Once man died in the garden their existence would cease with no further afterlife. But God created two trees in the Garden of Eden, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to effectuate an afterlife. One tree would lead to eternal life with God and the other tree would lead to eternal life apart from God. Satan could have redeemed himself and joined man in an existence with God eternal if he had led man to the tree of life. Instead he led them to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that produced an existence eternal apart from God.

You may ask why would God use man as a pawn and inject him into a situation where he knows one of his created beings, Satan, has become 'clinically insane'. If man only followed God's directions he would have been perfectly safe. God walked with man in the Garden of Eden which made him accessible to both Adam and Eve. If any one of them (Adam or Eve) would have reported Satan's temptation to God, God would have spared man any judgment and instead condemned Satan. Instead both man and Satan became sin and are destined to die for it and lead an existence eternal apart from God in hell. Except Man!

The events in the Garden of Eden were Satan's second chance at his own redemption by not giving into to his hatred for God and causing man to sin and incur death. Now God offered man that second chance as well through God's own son Jesus Christ. God knew that if man sinned he would have to give up his son in order to redeem man. Jesus Christ is God become man to live a sinless and flawless life to become a living sinless sacrifice on the cross and die as sin for the redemption of mankind (not Satan since he wasn't disguised as a man but a serpent. Satan hated God so much that he refused to disguise himself in the Garden of Eden as man, who was created in the image of God, but as a serpent that he saw back in the prehistoric dinosaur era of this world).

God is reaching out to man through his son Jesus Christ to extract mankind from their sentence of spiritual death, life forever apart from God in hell. But man, like Satan, is clinging to his hatred of God and refusing the offer of salvation. I implore anyone not already believing in Jesus Christ to surrender their hate and doubt and believe in the death and resurrection of God's son Jesus Christ, who is God become man, to extradite themselves from a sentence of eternity apart from God in hell.

God Bless
note:
If God were to show Satan the other side of his righteous character, that is the harshness of his judgments, then he would not use sweet and innocent looking creatures. He would instead use fierce and determined creatures that would highlight the harsh consequences of sin. He would create what we now call - dinosaurs. Fear of God – Exodus 20:20

Another point that must be made is that man was created without the knowledge of Good and Evil. If God truly created man to be a witness to Satan's misdeeds then lacking the knowledge of Good and Evil would ensure that there would be no contamination of the recollections of man by any ulterior motives created by man having a knowledge of good and evil. If man did report the misdeeds of Satan to God before sinning, and not after as it was, then man lacking the knowledge of good and evil would ensure an unbiased and trustworthy account. Without having the knowledge of Good and Evil man's recollection of the events in the Garden of Eden would be devoid of any moralistic indignation.

Also another point that must be noted is that God made all the animals without the ability to speak. So when Satan appeared as a serpent in the Garden of Eden and began to speak (a speaking animal) this oddity should have immediately caused Adam and Eve to go to straight to God for an explanation. Equally, when God gave Adam the task to name all the animals he was showing Adam that 'all' of the animals didn't speak. So when Satan began to speak as an animal (serpent) Adam should have brought this contradiction to God's attention. But note this task to name the animals was given to Adam not Eve. Eve wasn't as alarmed as Adam would have been when Satan spoke disguised as a serpent. This fact alone, of Eve's ignorance of God's decision not to have any of the animals speak, was one of the reasons why Satan went to Eve to tempt her. But we see that Eve should have went to Adam for an explanation as to why a serpent spoke (she could have also went directly to God) before committing her sin. Eve compounded her sin when she failed to inform Adam that a serpent (animal) spoke to her enticing her to eat the forbidden fruit before she offered the forbidden fruit to Adam. But Adam is nor fully blameless as he was told by God not to eat of the forbidden fruit. In both cases Adam and Eve should have went directly to God for guidance but instead they silenced God by ignoring him. America is committing the same sin as Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden. When we silence God by ignoring him. (Also note that Satan as a speaking serpent repeated God's command to Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit so this is evidence that Eve knew the command from God for she also repeated the command back to the serpent)

To sum up the events in the Garden of Eden. By judging man God was demonstrating that he would also bring judgment against even himself if he he had sinned and violated his own laws. By God condemning man (created in his image) to death he was showing that he would also condemn his own son Jesus Christ (God becoming man) when he came to this world to offer himself a sinless sacrifice (and actually became sin to effectuate man's forgiveness for his sins). Neither the image of God (man) or deity (Jesus Christ) was a defense to prevent God's own judgment against sin. Both died.

While it is true that Jesus Christ incurred the same penalty of sin, death, he was still sinless. This allowed the Holy Spirit to resurrect the lifeless body of Jesus Christ and reinstate him back in heaven to be with God the Father. All who believe in Jesus Christ will be granted the same outcome. Jesus Christ has become the tree of life for all who believe in him. While man is barred from the Garden of Eden where the tree of life exists, Jesus Christ brought the Garden of Eden and the tree of life to us through his own presence.

Accept Jesus Christ as your savior and get baptized......

 

[jasoncran]

this needs to be in the science forum as i could go into the science side of this.

so what is your point of this?

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Without a witness any judgment against Satan by God would become God accusing someone of a sin without any visible or recorded evidence. God would need a 3rd party witness before his righteous character would be upheld.

If God needs a "witness" to mete out His righteous judgement, that is denying His omnipotence.

Even so, Jesus said that everything He did was shown to Him by the Father. What better "witness" than the Son of God!

 

[Former Christian]

Ugmug

One can come up with all kind of interesting scenarios if one believes in Evolutionism as a foundational principle. Personally, the few Science Fiction speculations I've seen or read on Evolutionism put any such Christian speculations to shame. And make more sense.

If you're going to have the Bible as one of your foundational principles, you're going to have to explain where the Neanderthals and Dinosaurs show up in the Bible. Most sensible Christians who also believe in the conclusions of modern science at least have sense enough to say that the Bible isn't a book of science, at least any science as it is known today. They don't bring the Bible into it at all if they can help it. Science and religion are two different things as far as they're concerned that haven't any real relationship to one another. Christian Theistic Evolutionists even interpret the Genesis account as being just a symbolic story. One has to do a lot of interpretation in order to believe in the Bible and Evolutionism at the same time. Even Progressive Creationists have to interpret the Bible in order to fit it into their schemata of events.

FC

 

[jasoncran]

Ugmug

One can come up with all kind of interesting scenarios if one believes in Evolutionism as a foundational principle. Personally, the few Science Fiction speculations I've seen or read on Evolutionism put any such Christian speculations to shame. And make more sense.

If you're going to have the Bible as one of your foundational principles, you're going to have to explain where the Neanderthals and Dinosaurs show up in the Bible. Most sensible Christians who also believe in the conclusions of modern science at least have sense enough to say that the Bible isn't a book of science, at least any science as it is known today. They don't bring the Bible into it at all if they can help it. Science and religion are two different things that haven't any real relationship to one another. Christian Theistic Evolutionists even interpret the Genesis account as being just a symbolic story. One has to do a lot of interpretation in order to believe in the Bible and Evolutionism at the same time. Even Progressive Creationists have to interpret the Bible in order to fit it into their schemata of events.

FC

the problem is that side of creationism isnt so easily dismissed, here no member can really defend that so i ask you observe this site and join.

many of them are way more into creationism and macro-evolution nor star formation are observable.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?act=idx

and you err, since when is speculative pics and stories of what could by inference scientific? its not.

 

[Gazelle]

I take issue with a few things you stated, but this one first there is no evidence that animals could not speak. You said:

Also another point that must be noted is that God made all the animals without the ability to speak.

Now, why limit dinosaurs to prehistoric times? How would children's toy dinosaurs be found in their Egyptian tombs/pyramids if they no longer existed?

 

[Former Christian]

Jasoncran

Either the Bible is the Bible or it isn’t. Yes, I know that the majority in Christianity try to have it both ways. Some form or other of Theistic Evolution, the most laughable being Progressive Creationism. But either Evolutionism or the Bible is the myth. They each have their own prophets, the prophets and apostles of the Bible and Darwin as the modern prophet of Evolutionism. They promote two different scenarios that can only be reconciled through the practice of interpretation. Invariably it’s the Bible that gets interpreted. And why not? Evolutionism certainly isn’t about to change. Evolutionism hasn’t “evolved†much in the last hundred and fifty years. Certainly not enough to be reconciled to the Bible. So it’s the Bible that has to change. And it gives the appearance of change through interpretation. If one is going to believe in an interpreted Bible, might as well not believe in one at all. It isn’t going to take much more interpretation to finally ask, “well, where is the promise of his coming anywayâ?

FC

 

[jasoncran]

Jasoncran

Either the Bible is the Bible or it isn’t. Yes, I know that the majority in Christianity try to have it both ways. Some form or other of Theistic Evolution, the most laughable being Progressive Creationism. But either Evolutionism or the Bible is the myth. They each have their own prophets, the prophets and apostles of the Bible and Darwin as the modern prophet of Evolutionism. They promote two different scenarios that can only be reconciled through the practice of interpretation. Invariably it’s the Bible that gets interpreted. And why not? Evolutionism certainly isn’t about to change. Evolutionism hasn’t “evolved†much in the last hundred and fifty years. Certainly not enough to be reconciled to the Bible. So it’s the Bible that has to change. And it gives the appearance of change through interpretation. If one is going to believe in an interpreted Bible, might as well not believe in one at all. It isn’t going to take much more interpretation to finally ask, “well, where is the promise of his coming anyway�

FC

wow., go to that link i posted and look at whats been removedd from the transitionals, and well your bible when you read it is interpreted by you.!and you will find there man who are way more into this stuff then i am who know science and some are accredited themselves.

and also then if adam and eve and eve had children who mated with non humans who were genetically alike to her then you have a problem.

for what is it to be a human? animals dont have a ruach. and god didnt plan for man to have sex with beasts. in fact anything he ordained and said was good it wasnt a sin at all and still isnt.

 

[Former Christian]

Jasoncran

My friend. I can usually make out the point of what you’re saying. But it totally escapes me this time. In case you misunderstood what I said...

All I said is that there are two major world views that has a bearing on what a Christian might believe about the universe. The modern view of Evolutionism and the older view of the Bible. And there are many points of conflict between them. Too many points to reconcile without changing the view of one or the other. Most who believe that the view of Evolutionism is true, also believe that the Bible is just composed of writings of well meaning men who were wrong about the universe. After all, they didn’t have the “scientific facts†we have today. So they explained things according to what they could understand at the time.

As an Atheist, I was also an Evolutionist. As I was taught by my own family, the public school system, and all who were associated with us. Among my acquaintances there wasn’t one single Christian who didn’t believe in Evolutionism. The matter was never a problem. The Christians I knew just believed that God used Evolution in his creation of the universe, and when the time was right, voila, humans evolved into existence. There was never any question as to whether or not Adam and Eve were real people. It was just assumed that the account of Adam and Eve was just a metaphor for the beginning of the human race. And the idea of a universal flood, just a flood that affected the area where the human race existed at the time. Since I hadn’t read the Bible, I assumed these Christians knew what they were talking about. After all, it’s their religion. Didn’t have any importance to me at the time. I don’t remember meeting up with an Evangelical Protestant or a Jehovah’s Witness who might have had a different opinion back then. And at the time, the New Atheists didn’t exist. We all got along famously back then, we Atheists and the Christians. No one tried to force Atheism or Christianity down anyone’s throat. It was all just a matter of personal family Tradition. Never heard of anyone, Atheist or Christian, having a crisis of faith until I had one of my own.

When I began to consider belief in the Bible, I had to make a choice as to which world view I was going to believe. It wasn’t hard to tell the difference between the two views once I actually read the Bible. I could have easily just continued to believe what I already believed. And not believed in the veracity of the Bible on that account. Some of my Atheist family and friends revealed that they had read the Bible and already took that route. But unlike them, I chose to believe the world view that is in the Bible. Not because of a well reasoned change of mind. Rather, because of what most would just call a feeling. This feeling was like a gut feeling. Something inside that told me the Bible knows what it’s talking about. Of course, I now believe that it was the Spirit of God.

The Bible, when it does speak of the universe and mankind, it’s rather specific. I couldn’t then, and can’t now, see the sense in believing in a compromise theory that would be unacceptable to both views. Yet that’s what most Christians are doing today. Not long ago the difference was easier to see. Today, thanks to the Biblical interpretations being followed, the difference is moving more and more toward the view of Evolutionism. To the detriment of the view of the Bible. The best account against the Biblical view that I’ve yet to hear is by a Christian. If I actually agreed with all he said, I would have already reverted to Atheism by now. Because it would prove to me that the Bible is untrustworthy in the one area that only a real God would know for certain. It would prove to me that the Bible certainly doesn’t have its source in such a God.

Yet I endeavor to keep an open mind. And because I keep an open mind, I see clearly that interpretation of the Bible is no way to reconcile the world view of Evolutionism with that of the Bible. So the only understanding I can have of compromise theories, such as Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creationism, is that that they are just the interpretations of men that don’t matter in the grand scheme of things. I would be more apt to believe in the plausibility of the Gap theory. But I number that idea with the other two compromise theories. I’ve met Christians who hold to the Gap theory. It believes in an old earth and an old universe. But I believe in a young earth and an old universe. It seems to be a position unique to me. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. But it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not true either. And I admit that it’s a position that requires an understanding of the Genesis account that’s a little different than it’s usually translated.

FC

 

[for_his_glory]

DINOSAURS AND DRAGONS

Here are some examples of scripture speaking about dinosaurs and dragons as God uses his creations for certain explanations or analogies for our understanding of His word.

Job 40:15-18, 23 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 sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

Job 41 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?... I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.... Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.... Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him. The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved. His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone. When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves. The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon. He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble. Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear. Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire. He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment. He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary. Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.
(also see: Psa 74:14, Psa 104:26, Isa 27:1)

The Bible also talks about dragons. I believe that these were types of dinosaurs:

Isa 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.
Isa 51:9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?

Deu 32:33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

Job 30:29 I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.

Psa 44:19 Though thou hast sore broken us in the place of dragons, and covered us with the shadow of death.

Psa 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. (and Psa 148:7)

Isa 34:13 And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls.

Isa 35:7 And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.

Isa 43:20 The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.

Jer 9:11 And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant.

Jer 10:22 Behold, the noise of the bruit is come, and a great commotion out of the north country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons. (and Jer 14:6)

Jer 49:33 And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it. (and Jer 51:37)

Micah 1:8 Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked: I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls.

Mal 1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.


Hope this helps. There is a web site called Answers in Genesis. It has a lot of information about dinosaurs, I highly recommend it.

 

[Former Christian]

for his glory

Answers in Genesis is a Young Earth website. Do they actually equate these creatures with the Dinosaurs of the Evolutionists? How long ago do they estimate these creatures lived? Surely they’re not the same as the dinosaurs estimated by the Evolutionists to have existed millions and millions of years ago.

FC

 

[bigllama]

 

[for_his_glory]

for his glory

Answers in Genesis is a Young Earth website. Do they actually equate these creatures with the Dinosaurs of the Evolutionists? How long ago do they estimate these creatures lived? Surely they’re not the same as the dinosaurs estimated by the Evolutionists to have existed millions and millions of years ago.

FC

It doesn't take an Evolutionist explanations to prove to us that dinosaurs once existed as we can go to any museum to see that they did and actually still do today as we can see in the Komodo Dragon in Indonesia or alligators and many reptile creatures that are descendents of early dinosaurs.

Do any of us really know how old the earth is in the equation of Gods timing. Even with carbon dating and all the measuring equipment and technology we have today still can not depict Gods measure of time.

In Genesis 1:28 Gods instruction was to replenish, emphasis on the re, this earth so we might examine this as the earth was inhabited at one time before the creation of Adam and Eve which could have been when the giant dinosaurs we see in museums did exist.

Even though our Bible says God created everything in a certain amount of days, six to be exact, these days could be infinite in Gods timing. We do not have all the answers, but can only speculate on certain things.

 

[Destructus86]

I've always believed that dinosaurs existed during the time of Adam and Eve...outside of the Garden.

 

[Former Christian]

for his glory

“In Genesis 1:28 Gods instruction was to replenish, emphasis on the re, this earth so we might examine this as the earth was inhabited at one time before the creation of Adam and Eve which could have been when the giant dinosaurs we see in museums did exist.
Even though our Bible says God created everything in a certain amount of days, six to be exact, these days could be infinite in Gods timing. We do not have all the answers, but can only speculate on certain things.”


Speculation is as good a word as any to use in regard to a great many ideas that have come out of Christianity. And that enjoyable cartoon on bigllamma’s post is about as good a speculation as any regarding what happened to the dinosaurs.

If the dinosaurs did actually exist, as a Young Earther by personal opinion, I would favor the reason for their existence to be due to the long life spans of man and creature in the beginning. Unlike other animals, as I understand it, reptiles grow in size until they die. If Adam could live almost a thousand years, no doubt so also the creatures were long lived at that time. And what we know as lizards today could grow to gargantuan size. And maybe the great flood did actually kill off certain species of lizard like the Brontosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Stegosaurus, and the Triceratops. But finding some large bones doesn’t a dinosaur make. What they actually looked like is also only speculation.

Dinosaurs might only be due to a mutation or genetic defect of some sort, and consequently could conceivably live today under the right conditions. If they didn’t die first under the weight of their own bulk. If dinosaurs actually walked the earth at one time, my question would be, why don’t they today? The Komodo Dragon may be an exceptionally large lizard. But nothing on the order of the size some dinosaurs were supposed to be. I would expect aquatic dinosaurs, like the legendary Loch Ness monster to still be seen today. A flood certainly wouldn’t have killed them off. And speaking of the Loch Ness monster, though it’s still claimed to be seen, documented scientific expeditions looking for it on purpose have never been able to find it.

It’s my opinion that the dinosaurs are members of a speculative race created by scientists, some perhaps well meaning, more likely some not so well meaning. I think of dinosaurs with the same consideration I give UFO’s. And like you see dinosaurs in the Bible, there have been those who have seen UFO’s in the Bible.

And no doubt there are well meaning Christians who will surely claim that what I think of dinosaurs is an opinion that’s on a far lesser level than the opinions about dinosaurs of modern authoritative Scientism.

To me, one of the greatest speculations to come out of Protestant Christianity is the idea of the Gap Theory. It was quite popular less than a century ago, and is still advocated today by a fairly significant number of Christians. But it’s less popular than the idea of a Young Earth that has more than one form. Today, Theistic Evolution is the popular idea. The idea of Progressive Creationism is at least as interesting as Theistic Evolution, but doesn’t really seem to be taking hold in Christian imagination.

But I agree with you that as what the future holds is very speculative in Christianity, so also what the past was is also very speculative in Christianity. And even though I hold to personal opinions about both, I also am of the opinion that the speculations about the past and the future aren’t near as important as what is actually happening in the world today.

Speculation is more often than not composed of imaginary ideas based on some present idea of reality. That makes modern Christian speculations modern myths. Some even make good stories. I’m not above reading a good detective or science fiction novel or watching movies in the same vein. I’m one of a lot of people who shelled out twice, movie and DVD, to watch Avatar. I found it very entertaining, but ineffectual as a detriment to my personal belief system. And talk about your dinosaurs. But when I come out of a fictional venue, I return to the present where present reality has more than enough to keep me busy. And so far, I’ve seen no evidence that dinosaurs or UFO’s are part of the present reality, except as a speculation of course.


FC

 

[for_his_glory]

Speculations are only as good as ones own opinion without actual proof. I can give my own opinion, but I certainly would not want others to take that opinion as fact unless proof is present. I can not prove God exist to others by using logic or my own five senses, but all I can give is the actions of Gods word applied to my own life as a witness and testimony to his spoken word to know that his covenant promises are very real to me by those things he has done for me in my own life.

We can go to any museum to see the skeleton outline of a dinosaur to know that they did exist as proof is shown to us just as a forensic can lay out the skeleton of a body matching all the bones to form a human body. Take wind for instance, you can not see it but you can see the effects of it and this is the same with God and creation. We can not see God as he is spirit form, but we can know the evidence of him by applying his word to our lives to know for a surety he is real and created all things in heaven and on earth by what he said he did. We do not know how God came to be as he said he has always been and always will be, but we believe because we apply for evidential proof.

 

[Destructus86]

We should keep in mind also that we have no idea how long Adam and Eve existed in the Garden....or the life that was outside of the garden.

 

[for_his_glory]

Certainly gives us things to think about Destructus86. I always like a good challenge as it makes me dig even deeper into Gods word and I love to dig.

 

[Asyncritus]

I was sitting there simply gobsmacked at the sheer nonsense shown on a program called the Dinosaur Planet.

In it the claim was made several times that they've found dinosaurs with feathers in some remote place in China. They have obviously never heard of the following from wiki:

"Archaeoraptor" is the generic name informally assigned in 1999 to a fossil from China in an article published in National Geographic magazine. The magazine claimed that the fossil was a "missing link" between birds and terrestrial theropod dinosaurs. Even prior to this publication there had been severe doubts about the fossil's authenticity. It led to a scandal when evidence demonstrated it to be a forgery through further scientific study. The forgery was constructed from rearranged pieces of real fossils from different species. Zhou

et al. found that the head and upper body actually belong to a specimen of the primitive fossil bird Yanornis.[1] A 2002 study found that the tail belongs to a small winged dromaeosaur, Microraptor, named in 2000.[2] The legs and feet belong to an as yet unknown animal.[3][4]

Yes, this missing link was put together by some enterprising Chinese man/woman, and National Geographic made much hay with it.

Now the Chinese are nothing if not enterprising, and one wonders just how many frauds they have perpetrated on these foolish scientists who are so anxious to make a name for themselves.

The producers of the program obviously have no doubts whatsoever, and are busily propagating this nonsense about birds evolving from dinosaurs.

The program ended with these 'feathered dinosaurs' spreading their miraculously appearing 'wings' and gliding from tree to tree.

It was fascinating to watch how a few feathers on the forelimb of a reptile magically became 'wings'. Computer trickery with images can do a lot for the evolution process!

It never seems to have occurred to the producers that the shoulder joints of a reptile are designed to allow the forelimbs to move forward and backward, NOT laterally up and down.

Think about it. If you lie flat on your face on the floor, with your arms outstretched, how far towards your back can you raise your arms? Anything like this?

or this?

And don't forget, we have those very flexible ball and socket joints in our shoulders.

So not only did did the 'wings' evolve, so did the shoulder joints change. Why?

There was one problem which they grudgingly, quietly, and en passant noted. It was this, and I am eagerly waiting for the next session when it will magically happen.

The reptile does not have the powerful chest (pectoral) muscles needed to flap the wings up and down LATERALLY (sideways). Also, birds have a complicated pulley system which moves the wings up and down.

So unless a miracle of some kind takes place, the 'feathered dinosaur' cannot flap its wings.

I'm eagerly waiting to hear the scam-mongers pull this one out of the hat.

Not only that, but there's a MOST serious problem which you never hear about.

Suppose one fine morning, a reptile egg hatches out, and lo and behold, it isn't a baby reptile that hops out, but a bird! With wings! With warm blood! With the wonderful and entirely different structure of the bird lung system!

Never mind all those minor problems.

Richard Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster is hatched! (Yep, that's exactly what he proposed - that a bird hatched out of a reptile egg).

It's really a reptile mind you, with all the instincts etc of a reptile. But look! It's got wings! WINGS!

What the hell is it going to do with them?

Does it know? Has it been to flying school? Well, no.

So although it's got wings, it can't fly. And because it can't fly, those wings are a huge hindrance. It can't fly, and it can't escape from predators, because the wings prevent its rushing through the undergrowth.

Extinction. No more birds. They didn't happen.

But there are over 10,000 species of bird today, hundreds of millions of the things, doing all manner of marvels in flight:

Like the humming bird, which flies forward, backward, upside down and hover!

Like the Capistrano swallows which fly from Argentina to Capistrano every year, arriving on the exact same date, after a journey of over 7,500 miles.

Like the Pacific Golden Plover, whose offspring, without a parent to guide them, fly across the trackless Pacific Ocean, 2,800 miles, to Hawaii from Alaska (and back), every year.

So where did they come from? Did dinosaurs learn how to cross the Pacific? What utter nonsense.

This is the Almighty's doing.

So when they screen such stupid programs, write in and complain bitterly that this is top quality tripe, and utter nonsense.

They won't listen - but try anyway. One never knows.

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

The New Atheists are as intolerant as fundamentalist Christians. In my opinion they got the idea of being intolerant from them, as a reaction, so that they’re actually Fundamentalist Atheists. I was an Atheist before their time and had no problem with intolerance. I seriously doubt a few people writing in is going to suddenly make the intolerant see their “evil†ways.

The last time I heard of a write in affecting a TV show was when the Trekkies wrote in to get a third season of Star Trek. NBC suits allowed another season, then cancelled it. Which was OK with the Trekkies because that allowed the show to go into syndication. That was forty plus years ago. So far as I know, like I Love Lucy, it’s still in syndication somewhere in the world. Perhaps you know of another such incident that is more recent. I always thought that the Star Trek write in incident was unique. Especially since it was instigated by someone associated with the show itself. Which further makes me wonder how much politics was involved, something that’s never been mentioned about that show.

How about the uproar made by Christians about the movie Jesus Christ Superstar in the 70’s? Or more recently the uproar made by Christians about The DaVinci Code? And as it happened, I rather enjoyed the latter as a mystery story in itself. Didn’t know about the Christians against that movie until after I had already watched it. In that case I could understand their concern being as it questioned especially the validity of Christian history. But I couldn’t understand it taking on the important it did since the movie was just a work of fiction. But I don’t understand Christians coming out against Avatar, a movie that had no Christian references in it at all. A movie my kids enjoyed immensely and told me all about it, more than once. We have the DVD, but I haven’t had time to personally watch it as yet. It’s a three hour movie. I can understand Hindus being offended because of the mention of a blue Avatar. Which would of course be a misunderstanding since a whole race in that movie is blue. But Christians? Actually coming out against a fictional story about a race of beings that is Pantheistic in religion and group of humans who according to my kids appear to be religiously nothing at all, was also is an obvious knock against the negative treatment by certain militaristic type individuals against indigenous races, and further had a positive attitude about taking care of a planet as the only available resource to those who live there? Christianity has an element within it that really negatively impacts the true way in Jesus Christ, while thinking they’re doing the work of God. Even my kids think those who came out against Avatar are nuts. And I would like to think my older kids at least are smart enough to know what they’re talking about. And as if that kind of thing doesn’t sound familiar to anyone familiar with what the Bible actually says.

The point is, it has been admitted that the Christians made those movies a lot more popular than they would have been otherwise. The exact opposite of their own intentions. The Christians were the movie’s best advertising gimmick. Maybe, un-like the New Atheists and Fundamentalist Christians, we should leave well enough alone and let some of this stuff just die out under the weight of its own stupidity. I would say including the New Atheists and Fundamentalist Christians. But I suppose that would be considered discriminatory. Even so, its all probably here to stay until a generation with better sense comes along, if it does.

Neither the New Atheists nor the Fundamentalist Christians seem to understand each other at all. They continuously shadow box one another, never getting close enough to land the knockout punch. Something seen most clearly in the Evolutionist/Creationist debates.

There’s a special sub-forum for the Evolutionist/Creationist debate on this forum. Perhaps you can see by my posts on this thread why I don’t bother myself with it. I have a real hard time arguing with a straight face about something, wherein both sides with their soap box tactics, view each other’s view as mythical. Probably why Theistic Evolutionism has become the most popular view in Christianity. Yet I think I’ve already mentioned my opinion about that compromising attempt at a reconciliatory view, and others like it, such as the Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism. I’m still of the opinion that if we can interpret Genesis metaphorically, there’s no reason not to interpret the rest of the Bible in like manner. Many Christians already do that. A metaphorical Christ who metaphorically dies for our sins. Like Genesis, it’s just a story after all.

“OK children, during the next few weeks, we’re going to hear the story about Jesus Christ and what it means to us today, covering the most popular interpretations of the day.†Hogwash! I’d rather be an Atheist. Can’t say I can get very serious about stories. And that’s why a lot of Atheists are Atheists. They see no reason to get serious about stories. They’d rather get serious about what can be observed, experimented on, and understood in the natural universe. Can’t say as I blame them. What with so many Christians treating the Bible like its just a book of stories that can be made to say anything through the practice of interpretation. As if there are stories within the stories.

Accounts of reality I can get serious about. And I still happen to be one who believes that the Bible is an actual account of reality revealed to us by God. All of it. I see no reason to try to make some parts interpretively agree with a different world view. In fact, I see no reason to interpret the Bible at all.

While I don’t think writing to anyone is going to make any difference at this point in time, wherein such letters are received and considered crank letters; I do applaud at least that you bring up the fact that there are stories like the one you mentioned out there. Personally, I already know about them and can discern new ones when they show up. Some have a hard time telling fiction from non-fiction thanks to their cultural upbringing. And the fact that, as you pointed out, some fictional things are currently being considered non-fiction doesn’t help them overcome their confusion.

FC