In a recent thread, there was discussion about Dinosaurs and their involvement in the Bible. I submitted that there was a substantial body of evidence to support human/dinosaur coexistence, provided links to said evidence, and was not substantially countered. There are numerous secular sources that will argue for the existence of "dinosaurs" on increasingly smaller scale into the middle ages.

Further, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to argue that dinosaurs were extinct before humans came around, aside from the "My 4th grade teacher told me so" argument. Given the overwhelming body of evidence and the complete inapplicability of the point, there's no solid reason to dispute it, except the simple reason that disagreeing with Bible believers is a lot of fun. Human/dino coexistence can certainly be consistent with the rest of evolutionary theory.

But, realistically, let's face it -- dinosaurs are theologically insignificant. They don't play any role in any of the fundamental points of the book, so why should they even be mentioned? I'm surprised they even earn a passing reference in Job, quite frankly. If they weren't mentioned at all, it wouldn't bug me in the least. Why _should_ they be mentioned? I mean, seriously -- we get only passing references (relatively speaking) to some of the most major cultures of the time, all the way through the OT. Should we question the validity of a historical document simply because it doesn't provide the level of detail that we desire on some topic? In that case, I choose to refute the historical nature of today's newspaper, because it doesn't discuss the fact that butterflies die when the weather gets cold, a fact that I have personally witnessed. :rolleyes:


Spot on, mate. This definitely applies to religious teaching everywhere. I meet too many people who claim to carry some belief, but then can't defend it to save their lives. I meet way too many people who apparently attend the church of "I like to feel," because they say that so often. "I like to feel that Paul meant such-and-such when he wrote Corinthians." Well what did Paul say? ... Of course, the same applies to the religion of evolution, taught in schools everywhere. "My 4th grade teacher told me it was true" is no more valid a defense than "My pastor told me it was true."

There's my other $.02. Next time, we need to talk about the demise of film-based photography so I can wax passionate about the immense detail of a print made from 4x5 negs and the Zone System, and how Ansel Adams is turning in his grave because of people who don't previsualize their pictures. ;)

There is no evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html

Scientists and their religious beliefs (from wikipedia):

In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God". The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage, of 60.7% (this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences). Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%. [5] (See also The relationship between religion and science).

Mike

Your link makes two points:
1 - "This argument has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is a viable theory." Yup, I concur, made that point one post up, thanks. Why do you insist on fighting it? By suggesting that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, I'm not making an argument for creation, for a young earth, even for a God. I'm simply suggesting that the evidence certainly supports dinosaurs existing on an increasingly smaller scale up until the middle ages. This is 100% compatible with evolution.
2 - "Paluxy doesn't stand up to examination." Well, I beg to differ, and there's a lot of other evidence for it besides Paluxy. The Paluxy find is actually pretty strong, but it's really only one piece in a much bigger puzzle. I won't repost evidence from the other thread, simply because this difference isn't worth the effort. If you insist on believe the TO-guy, ok, more power to you, it has no effect on any other belief. It's an isolated deal. It's just that we keep coming back to the idea that dinosaurs and humans should have coexisted, and some of you keep saying, "No, we all know they didn't."

:rolleyes:

You've been watching too much "Land of the Lost". Sleestaks aren't real. :>)

Seriously, "we all know they didn't" because that's exactly what the evidence shows us. A 64 million year gap in the fossil record seems kind of difficult to overcome.

Most of the people that are trying to show that dinosaurs recently departed the Earth have a religious-based agenda (i.e. to support their YEC perspective). I'm not saying you are one of these people, but your viewpoint does beg the question. Otherwise, why put forth ideas that are so contrary to mainstream scientific thought?

Mike

Oh, and while we're on Paluxy, just for laughs ... the strongest attack I could find on the Paluxy evidence was a very well-written piece, complete with pictures and measurements and hand-sketches and the whole works. His thesis was that the tracks that looked like human tracks weren't really human at all, but merely a dinosaur with feet shaped just like a human's feet. Beautiful.

Some light reading on this "Paluxy" controversy:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

I've read nothing that lends credence to the fact that this is anything but wishful thinking on the YEC side...

Mike

All this time I just thought they were (unsuccessfully) trying to drown the baby.

(shrug) And I've read nothing that lends credence to most of macro-evolution that it is anything more than wishful thinking. We have a difference of opinion based on differing interpretation of the same set of facts. I, for one, am not losing any sleep over it.

But you've gotta laugh at P-O-P's post, right? ;)

Yeah, P-O-P put it all in perspective, for sure. :>)

Unfortunately for the anti-evolution crowd, the evidence in support of the phenomenon is overwhelming (even macro-evolution) and the evidence that contradicts it is...well, the silence is deafening. There is simply no other credible way to explain the volumes of evidence. Glad you're not losing sleep, though.

Mike