General Question

Anaphase's avatar

How do creationists explain dinosaurs fossils?

Asked by Anaphase (768points) September 3rd, 2008

I’ve always wondered this. There’s nothing in the Bible about dinosaurs, right? Noah supposedly took all the animals, correct?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

53 Answers

bodyhead's avatar

I just responded to something about this very issue. There is a large sect of Evangelical Christians who think that the devil buried those bones and he also faked the carbon dating.

Sometimes, it helps to see something to realize how extremely ridiculous it really is.

teach the controversy

PupnTaco's avatar

The work of the devil!

jballou's avatar

Well it takes a pretty healthy belief in science to even consider dinosaur fossils to be dinosaur fossils. Just because there are giant bones/fossils doesn’t mean they are from anything contradictory to creationism. If you don’t believe in evolution, they could just be bones of a giant animal. Right?

Obviously, I’m just speculating, I don’t know much about creationism, but it seems to me that if they can support their beliefs in the face of many many years of scientific research in support of evolution, they can pretty easily explain away dinosaur fossils.

bodyhead's avatar

Thinking those bones belong to any animal is absolutely contradictory to strict creationism. Those people believe that the dinosaur bones were never any type of animals. The devil made the bones and buried them in the earth to deceive us.

If you are a strict creationist, then you believe that the world is from 6,000 to 10,000 years old (instead of 4.5 billion years old).

Trust me. These people are insane. It’s not even a rational rebuttal to evolution. These people just tell you “god did it” or “the devil did it” and that’s the answer to every debate question.

jballou's avatar

I see your point, all I really meant to say is that if you’re dealing with a creationist and you show them a dinosaur fossil, it wouldn’t be much of a challenge for them to be able to explain it since they don’t believe in the science that makes dinosaur bones “dinosaur bones,” you know? It’s not proof of anything in and of itself, because science has told us what it is. Remove science from that equation and they’re really just some old bones, with no way of telling how old they are.

bodyhead's avatar

Carbon dating is real. They don’t say it isn’t. They just say that the carbon dating that says how old the bones actually are is a trick of the devil. They don’t disagree that it looks like the bones are 100 million years old. While we think that it’s because the bones are that old, they think that it’s because the devil created those bones and wanted those tests to come out that way to fool nonbelievers.

I know these people. I live in the south.

flameboi's avatar

I’ve heard about extreme southern positions about religion, is really that serious???

bodyhead's avatar

It’s pretty damn serious down here. It tends to get worse the closer to the Gulf you get. There are a bunch of very intelligent people here but there does seem to be a big red area of good ol boys here on the outskirts of Middle America.

If you want to get the crap scared out of you. Rent the documentary ‘Jesus Camp’. It makes my religious friends cringe.

scamp's avatar

Get yourself one of these shirts to keep you safe!

eambos's avatar

I’m buying one of those shirts! I like them!

bodyhead's avatar

@scamp, You cheater! You just clicked around on my link. Really, I do like pretty much all of those shirts. Too bad I have to wear collared ones to work. Also my boss would take it as a personal attack on his religious beliefs because he’s like that.

scamp's avatar

ha ha!! That’s not cheating! It’s proof that I looked at your link! You should be flattered, not mad.

Knotmyday's avatar

I once had a nice, earnest Mormon kid explain that the fossil record is the result of (and I kid you not):

Extraterrestrial fossils, embedded in meteorites that fell to earth long ago- but not too long, according to the diluvian timeline.

How do you counter that? head…hurts…can’t…see…straight…aaaaaaaaaauuuuuugh!

jballou's avatar

@bodyhead Wow! That’s pretty extreme! I’ve never heard that viewpoint before. But if they’re basically advocating that anything is possible through the will of God- that’s a pretty easy way to explain anything!

What I can’t figure out is why the hell they would believe in carbon-dating…

CreativeCricket's avatar

The Bible does talk about dinosaurs:
Job 40:15–24;
Job 41
Isaiah 27:1
Psalm 104:26
They were created along with all the other animals. They were brought on the ark. Fossils are caused by sudden extreme pressure. That would be caused by the flood. The earth was so changed by and after the flood (ie. temperature differences, land and plant changes, and the short ice age) that the few dinosaurs left could not survive. Except for the few that took refuge (theoretically) in the deep jungles or, for those that could, deep in lakes and oceans (ie. Nessie). There have been reports, recent reports, of dinosaur sightings on in the deep jungles of South America. And we’ve barely explored the ocean!

Carbon dating is accurate to a point. I’m not completely sure what that point is but I know it’s not past 500,000 years. How are the bones dated? By how old the rock surrounding them is. How do they know how old the rock is. By what bones they find!

This is the first time I’ve heard of “fossils are planted by the Devil”. It shows that some not all Christians, Mormons, JW’s, or any other are still stuck in the mindset of “because evolutionist use them they must be wrong”. This is the wrong mindset, and it’s painful to think that so many are still stuck in it.

jballou's avatar


But we were specifically talking about Creationists, not Christians in general. Many many many Christians believe in evolution.

Anaphase's avatar

@jballou: I understand what you mean by “removing the science” and all, but even if the bones were just some large animal’s bones, and not our ancestor’s, how would a creationist explain the existence of those large animals in the first place?

As I was typing the above comments, CreativeCricket typed some “proof”. In the links you provided, they could be talking about anything! It even says in the footnotes that they’re probably talking about animals like the hippo and crocodile! It all just seems kind of silly to me.

Harp's avatar

There is even a school of Christian thought that speculates that God might have fabricated the fossil record (along with other evidence) in order to provide a rational counter-explanation to the Bible’s account. The rationale is that if the evidence supported the creation account unambiguously, then no faith would be required.

So they see it as a false trail of evidence to mislead the unfaithful.

PupnTaco's avatar

God’s such a joker, He’ll do anything for a couple of yuks.

Anaphase's avatar

@Harp: That actually makes sense. I totally see how someone could believe that. That answered my question spot on.

if only there was a “SUPER GREAT ANSWER” button…

bodyhead's avatar

Harp is right on. Not everyone who believes in creationism believes that God planted those bones. A large portion believe the Devil planted those bones in an effort to trick humanity into not believing in God.

bodyhead's avatar

@CreativeCricket, I just read through all those verses you listed. It doesn’t appear to refer to dinosaurs. I’m not aware of any fire breathing dinosaurs but there might have been some back in magic land back in the time of talking snakes.

2000 years ago typically the ‘Leviathan of the sea’ is something concocted to explain events that people don’t understand. You’ll see them actually drawn on a lot of old maps alongside the kraken (giant squids do exist but the legends mostly talk about magic beasts).

If a boat disappears the leviathan did it. If a shark kills a man that falls overboard the leviathan did it. We’re not talking about schooled intelligent people here. We are talking about people who were entrenched in superstition and ‘religious miracles’.

Imagine them trying to explain someone with a flashlight. “There was some type of divine beam of light that protruded from his palm. He turned the dark to light and became the master of changing night to day.” If you don’t understand much, everything seems amazing.

After reading those bible verses, the three things that popped into my mind are the buffalo, the lion and the Loch Ness monster. If that’s the bibles ‘proof’ of dinosaurs then it is very sorely lacking. I’d like to know how those verses explain the existence of dinosaurs. You’re not alone in thinking this.

I’ve had this argument with people before but they didn’t quote the bible so I wasn’t able to see what they were referring to.

flameboi's avatar

Dinosaurs in the deep jungles of South America????
Are you kidding me!!!!!
The animals closest to a dinosaur are the Galapagos tortoise, the komodo dragon, and I think that’s it….

robmandu's avatar

to @Harp’s point…

God creates Adam and then later, Eve.

You build a time machine, grab a medical doctor, and without telling him where he’s going, transport him back to the day after Eve shows up.

Ask him how old the unnamed female is.

Using all of the latest scientific techniques (any equipment can be brought along), the M.D. would make a careful and thorough evaluation.

Since the bible implies that they were adults, it’s probably be expected that the M.D. would estimate Eve’s age anywhere from 15–30. Whatever, you get the idea.

At this point, Eve’s only been in existence for 24 hours, but all scientific examination of the physical evidence would point to her being a human adult in terms of development (which necessarily includes all pre-suppositions of such development).

Extrapolate concept to the earth and the cosmos.


flameboi's avatar

Can we catalogue it as a Fairy Tale?
Just imagine, the people that wrote that had lots of free time, I’m sure their imagination was the only resource to have fun with….

bodyhead's avatar

Even the genius’s of their day (2000 years ago) would have between a 4th and 5th grade education by today’s standards (or less considering they gathered most of their eduction from oral histories).

I don’t believe much that a 4th grader tells me that I haven’t verified myself. Everything seems like magic to kids. I don’t think the bible is as much a fairy tail as it’s stories of experiences that the people of the time had no idea how to grasp. If we can’t think of an explanation for something, we look for it scientifically. If they don’t have an expiation for something, they are so powerless to come up with answers that they have to imagine that there is a divine force directing all actions. We know today that this is physics (especially gravity). If we sent David Blane back in time, he could easily start his own religion that would rival Christianity today.

The world is flat. The sun revolves around the earth. Jesus is the divine son of God. These are all ideas that were widely considered accurate at the time.

Some people consider the bible as fact. They say every written word is the word of God. Those people are the ones who use bible verses out of context to explain their atrocious actions. Those people scare me.

@Harp, man you really put that well up there.

Harp's avatar

One thing that would bother me about the whole “pre-aged” universe paradigm, even if I were a believer, is that it portrays God as having an active roll in a grand scheme of deception, playing a high stakes game of “Gotcha!”, which seems more in keeping with the Devil’s traditional role.

This would involve more than presenting His creatures with a nice, comfy, “matured” world to live in. It would mean that He went to the trouble of creating evidence of fanciful creatures long dead and even tweaking their radiological signatures, all in anticipation of a time 6000 years later when fallen Man would use radio-dating. That’s a pretty thorough deception. And it would mean that He not only positioned quasars and other radio emitters out at the far reaches of the universe where Man couldn’t see them, but then laid in place a long stream of electromagnetic radiation stretching from there to the Earth so that by the time Man invented the radio telescope, it would appear that those bodies had been cranking out their signals for billions of years.

And presumably, all of this grand deception would have been in place at the time God was creating His first beloved human children. It just paints a picture of a God who put an awful lot of thought into laying false evidence. Not a very compelling portrait, in my opinion.

robmandu's avatar

@Harp, I hear you… but it assumes that the only explanation is the intent is to deceive.

The thing about anti-creationist argument is that it assumes that God created a pristine, new, infant reality. And yet, with adult Adam and Eve, we’re given case-in-point where that’s not necessarily true.

How long would Eve’s hair have been at the moment she was created? If it was 8 inches long (at a rate of 1/2 inch per month), then science would dictate that her hair must be at least 4 months old, empirically speaking with our pre-conceptions.

Would Eve hair calluses on her feet so they’d be tough enough to walk around barefoot? Would she have an established population of micro-organisms in her gut that aid in digestion? Would she have her wisdom teeth in? (I think a creationist Christian might guess Yes to all of those… but he cannot prove it. No one can, without a time machine.)

Long hair, calluses, a healthy digestive system, all her teeth… these are things that would help Eve thrive in her environment. They’re not there to deceive her into thinking she’s somehow developed over several years, but with a new case of total amnesia.

I don’t think the immediate creation of a fully developed system (human body, planet, or universe) must be interpreted as an attempt to deceive. But I agree that it’s difficult to prove otherwise. Hell, here on Fluther, we mis-interpret each other’s motivations all the time. How much moreso a human trying to understand God.

My problem with relying on science as the only answer-producing mechanism is that there are real limits on what it can measure. And there are assumptions that must be made in order for those measurements to proceed. The idea of God having a hand in creation would necessarily put those assumptions at risk. Hence a scientific approach that doesn’t allow for God’s involvement in my examples above would lead to erroneous results.

I’m fine with scientific debate. I’m fine with scientific investigation and explanation. I want more of it. I just like to recognize where the limits are.

Science cannot prove God’s existence (yet?). Nor can it disprove it.

For folks to get mad about that, either way, is folly.

robmandu's avatar

ugh… typo… “Would Eve have calluses…”

bodyhead's avatar

Science can’t prove that an invisible unicorn doesn’t follow me a around or that potatoes talk to me. As a matter of fact, you can’t disprove that I have an invisible friend that loves me. Turns out you can’t prove that things don’t exist. You can only prove when things do exist. As a stanch Pastafarian, I believe in Russell’s teapot. Do you?

Russell’s teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

Any claim with no hard evidence to back it up should have to go through the proper scientific channels. Robmandu, you make such amazing points that I cannot believe that you’re still hiding behind the idea that ‘god (like leprechauns) can’t be disproved’

robmandu's avatar

@bodyhead… science cannot even theorize, let alone prove, what happened prior to the Big Bang. Our mathematical models break down.

There was something before the Big Bang. But the nature of that something cannot be proven, or even guessed at without a lot of ancillary debate. And the ultimate origin of that something is even more remote.

So when you say that any claim should have to go thru proper scientific channels, how would that work?

Look, all I’m saying is that science is imperfect in knowledge and scope. True, it’s ever expanding and everyday science makes progress in answering more that it did before. So, maybe one day science will be able to dis-/prove the existence of God. I just don’t think that time is now. To pretend that it is would be just as silly as believing in your invisible friend.

robmandu's avatar

BTW, @bodyhead, another thing you said was: Even the genius’s of their day (2000 years ago) would have between a 4th and 5th grade education by today’s standards (or less considering they gathered most of their eduction from oral histories).

Man, I wish today’s 4–5th graders were this smart (4,500 years ago). I’d even settle for this smart (5,000 years ago).

bodyhead's avatar

The invisible friend is a direct metaphor for people who think that Christ is intimately involved in their lives. You’re right though. On some levels I do think that it’s silly.

I wouldn’t pretend to know everything by any means. Human brains today are infantile compared to what they will be like in 2000 years. That will make the people who did write the bible look that much more like cavemen. Even then, they won’t decipher the mysteries of life. I will say one thing. I bet that less and less people will begin to believe in the Christian god as human communications begin to improve (internet, phones, etc). When you have opposing viewpoints as a child and you are not brainwashed to believe what your parents do, it’s easier to make an informed decision.

I really do respect where your head and your heart appear to be. It’s great to see someone who is truly neutral.

You didn’t say this directly but you are also right in that science and the rules of physics change every century or so. There have been amazing breakthroughs in science over the past 2000 years. I’m not aware of any breakthroughs to come out of religious institutions (of divine origin) but maybe you can enlighten me.

There is enough evidence to disprove God now. You just haven’t read it yet. I would recommend you take a look at the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. If you are still neutral at the end of the book, I will be more then a little amazed.

@robmandu (latest response), I wish the people today were as smart as Albert Einstein. There will always be exceptions for any general statement like mine. If there were 100 Mensa members on Tennessee, I wouldn’t call it a genius state. I would just say that there are some very smart people there. There are also some very dumb people here. Just because a fraction of the population rises above social stigmas, doesn’t mean that the majority does.

We still don’t know today how some marvels of the past were made. That won’t change until we can go back in time. Just because people could do creative or innovative things in the past didn’t mean that they can understand the world around them. I’m willing to bet any 4th or 5th grader could run the Egyptian empire as well as any of the mentally handicapped offspring of the pharaohs (especially the ones who would only marry within their own families – occasionally married siblings would control ancient egypt).

Knotmyday's avatar

Fascinating, Rob.

Once again, circular reasoning, presented with cavalier disregard for empirical evidence.

How do we know how long Eve’s hair was at the moment of ex nihilis creation? Answer: We don’t. Not because we haven’t access to a time-machine, but because she was a fictional literary character, and the author didn’t include it in the narrative.

In the exact same vein, we will never know how long the hair on Frodo Baggins the Hobbit’s feet was at the time he threw the Ring of Doom into the fire, because Tolkien neglected to include it in the story.

Oops…I just discovered a flaw in my own argument. Ready? We cannot disprove the existence of Hobbits!!!!!!!!!!! Can we? If we believe in them fervently enough, who knows?

For anyone to get mad about my profoundly illogical statement is, of course, also folly.

next: the Easter Bunny. Proof: colored eggs and jellybeans. Hey, I’ve seen them with my own eyes, so of course He (the E.B.) MUST exist!!!!

robmandu's avatar

@Knot, now it seems you’re just on a vendetta. I’m pretty sure I allowed for your point in my quip when I used words like if, and might, and guess, and cannot prove.

bodyhead's avatar

It’s actually not bad reasoning. It’s easy for those of use that don’t believe to condemn the bible as fiction.

Using good logical reasoning, we’ve got to consider the ‘what ifs’ in case it does happen to be true. We cannot really explore all of the pit-holes of any object that we do not examine carefully. If we simply glace at something and dismiss it as folly, that wouldn’t be very scientific of us.

@Knotmyday, you make a valid point. You cannot disprove any work of fiction but you can prove some accurate non-fiction accounts. The bible happens to be an unprovable work so it cannot be casually thrown into a fiction or non-fiction pile. (but it does seem like you have a wee bit of a vendetta).

I just think that ‘well you can’t disprove it’ is an incredibly weak argument.

Do you know how big Noah’s ark would have to be in order to fit two of every animal on earth? So maybe there were dinosaurs on that ark too? That is a really big ark.

robmandu's avatar

@body, I think I’m trying to make the point that it’s more than ‘well you can’t disprove it’. I might not be doing a very good job of it, though. ;-)

It seems to me that most of the folks who simply laugh off the bible as ridiculous and silly do so because they’ve predicated their decisions on ridiculous and silly pre-conceptions.

Like, obviously the universe is quintillions of years old because we know it takes light so long to travel from such-and-such distant star to get to earth… without allowing that a creative God might’ve built the whole thing as a mature system.

Bear with me for one more Adam & Eve example. Immediately after creation, Adam & Eve were alive (of course). Was there oxygen in their cells, in their blood? How’d that oxygen get there? It takes 23 seconds for blood to flow a complete circuit in the body. Add time for absorption of the oxygen into cells. If that mature, dynamic, and active process wasn’t already in place, I think it’s arguable that Adam & Eve never would’ve woken up in the first place.

Why wouldn’t the same logic apply to the universe as a whole? From a scientific perspective, it’s correct to say the universe is quintillions of years old because that’s what the measurable evidence provides. From a Christian creationist perspective, it’s correct to say the universe is 6,000 years old. What’s the truth? The only way, right now, to really, really know is to die… and see if you meet your maker. Or not.

Now I’m not saying that everybody approaches this with silly pre-conceptions. Not even folks here necessarily. Nor are silly pre-conceptions limited to one side or the other (the Devil placed fossil bones in the ground. Seriously?!?!) And it should go without saying that I’m certainly no where near Einstein in either intellect or biblical education.

I’m just questioning the rationale people are arguing about. And further to say that science should continue to focus on what it’s good at and what it’s capable of handling. Dismissing something as impossible just because science hasn’t reached a point where it can actually investigate the topic… well, that seems pedantic, elementary, and short-sighted… especially given that science knows there are boundaries to its capabilities, is constantly pushing and exceeding them, and has every reason to think it will get there some day.

Harp's avatar

Isn’t it in the very nature of religious faith that it will refuse to accept evidence that is in contradiction to the tenets of the faith?

Whereas science (in principle at least) is open to contrary evidence, can the same be said of faith? Would there ever really be an evidenciary tipping point at which the faithful would say, “Oh OK, it’s obvious now”? I’m not sure there would be.

robmandu's avatar

@Harp, touché.

One point I might add is that even hard, physical proof isn’t always sufficient to bolster faith. Consider folks scared to fly (despite better safety record than cars), ride rollercoasters (despite 5-point safety harnesses), keep their lights on at night (despite the fact that JackAdams isn’t in their home), etc.

So, even with proof, there’s still some sort of leap (albeit smaller) for faith to occur. I believe that many religious texts (including the bible) mention heavenly rewards commiserate with great faith.

bodyhead's avatar

Faith isn’t always sufficient to bolster faith. When religious people die are they not scared? I would bet they are. Maybe it’s because they doubt that for which they have no proof. What if they’re wrong. If they their faith is the correct one, then they should have no reason to be scared to die.

I would have used the example of the microscope. It takes a bit of faith (in science) to assume what you are seeing is actually a tiny object. The science that makes the microscope has been proven over and over again but it still does take an inkling of faith. This is a battle that constantly wages war in my head.

I have to have faith that there is air that I breath. I can’t really prove it. If you take it away, you die (but since I’m still alive I can’t truly prove this theory). I only really assume it’s there because you would have to be an idiot not to believe.

I only really assume it’s there because you would have to be an idiot not to believe. This is the same argument that pro-god people use when countering me.

My contention is this: Why does God have to be disproved when hobbits do not? They are both in books written by very intelligent people. Just because people believe in book, it does not make that book true. Should we have to disprove every work of fiction?

bodyhead's avatar

by the way, I have to give you props for this:


Knotmyday's avatar

Not precisely sure that the term vendetta applies exactly, but I am irritated when fairy tales and literary conceit are presented as scientific “proof.”

Also, I am not “laughing off the Bible as ridiculous or silly.” The Bible is a fantastic work of literature, rich in poetry and legend.

I marvel at people who have chosen to regard it as a scientific textbook.

bodyhead's avatar

If we shared a couple of beers in a pub together it would be easy to laugh off the bible as ridiculous. For the sake of argument, what we are trying to do is argue that the bible isn’t true from it’s own perspective.

I realize that most of us are on the same page here but when having a casual conversation with a Chrisitian, if I just write off the bible as fictional, then it might seem like I’ve lost the argument. If we can argue through the contradictions in the bible and point out how it’s ok to take slaves of other cultures when they are POWs, that’s when people start listening.

It’s more potent to say, “How do you explain this bible verse?” then it is to say, “How do you explain that the bible is crap?” You might go on to say, “Oh, well here are the logical reasons why your explanation cannot happen.”

Instead of disregarding the bible as a credible source, we can logically poke a million holes in someones faith. There’s nothing quite like opening someones eyes for the first time.

JamieNadeau's avatar

So, with all this mention of Dinasaurs, angels, dragons, etc, etc, etc. A few flaws in creationist and literal bible-ists still counfound me.

For one: The bible was not written in english, yet “This is the word of the Lord.” Who translated it? Where they good at translating? Did they make mistakes? Did they miss things? Just go on google, using a powerful translator and translate a foreign page….See how funny it is! I have a feeling the translators back in the day weren’t top-notch.

For Two: Why is it called the King James Edition? Why are there Different editions? Why were there certainly chapters,sections left out? Well, i think thats obvious as some chapters were just not that interesting and King James and all the others who “edited” the bible did so to further their own control over a population. They took out what they liked and added what they didn’t. Without intending to sound too cynical, i don’t think God hired all these editors.

For Three: When did Luke, John, Mathew, ect write the bible? I remember when i was young, the nun teaching me for my Confirmation told me they “Followed Jesus Around.” Even as a kid, this made no sense and it is reality that they did not follow Jesus, in fact, they likely were not even alive when Jesus was alive! They wrote stories based on stories passed down. Why do they conflict in so many places? Same stories, different story-tellers equals lots of personal touches.

The whole idea that Carbon dating is Flawed, the “great flood” causes high pressures to bury and fossilize the dinosaurs is just silliness. You just need to know basic science (not to mention common sense) to understand that is silly.

lukelanier's avatar

Actually, the bible does talk about dinosuars. Somewhere (i forgot where, and I really don’t feel like looking it up) it does mention a large animal that was loosly transated as “thunder tail”.
Also, about the fossils and carbon dating, etc, God created Adam and Eve as adults, right? Why can’t he create a world thats already matured? Maybe the Earth actually is the billions of years old people say it is. Adam and Eve were yound adults.

lukelanier's avatar

Ah, but JamieNadeu, your talk about the great flood being silly. Did you know all the fossils found in one perod of time in the grand canyon are all facing one way?

clinging2thecross's avatar

@JamieNadeau to answer some of your questions

For one: If you are curious about copying the original documents, the bible outlines the requirements and guidelines for the scribes copying. They had to match up the center letter, the exact number of characters, the exact spelling of the word. It was a very detailed and cautious practice at least for the old testament, and with the exception of a few words all of the copies of the old testament match up and all of the copies of the new testamant match up,

For two: there are different versions because different people translate it, and just like the word right has many meanings, so do the ancient words. Certain chapters or sections are left out in some parts because of them not being included in the oldest manuscripts. It is the same situation as some Shakespeare and older plays. You can check the modern copies against the original and see that they match up, if you can read the original copies.

For three: The contradictions in the four gospels are like the contradictions between reports of the 9/11 attacks. Each author focuses on what is important to them. We do know that the second gospel, Mark, is dated from around ad60ish. We have a section dating back that far. As for the rest, it is the same as if you wanted to report on Katrina five years later, or 9/11 ten years later or WWI nearly a century later. You would use as much eyewitness testimony as you could get, add in oral history, written documents, other sources, and your own word choice and you get the truth. Mark was probably written first, followed Matthew and Luke who used mark as a source. John was probably written some time afterward.

As far as the idea that the earth is billions of years old, that really isn’t that hard to conceptualize in religion. God created man as adults, probably, 18–30, so its probable that He designed the world and the universe mature as well. if that means that it tooks seemingly billions of years to mature, then that is logical.

Choonologist's avatar

So it was the chicken first then eh? Hmm, perhaps if the biological processes of developmental growth were excluded form the human birth process, there would be no HIV or other std’s or any kind of disease required or present in the world( or our immune system);(a mother that is hiv positive can give birth to a hiv neg baby, but the baby usually contracts the disease via breast feeding…) ... Wouldn’t it be better if to be born, people dropped out of the sky(heavens) like Adam n Eve,(no need for parachutes as laws of physics and chemistry are out the window already)..dropped out of the sky aged about 18(legal drinking age ; ) ,, with preprogrammed and installed copies of the bible( or Qur’an…) planted in the cerebral cortex, or, why not make that implanted in our dna? Then plants could be religious too. Then there would be a little less hassle with stuff like disease, over populating, aging, the rise of over 70 organized false religions when there is only one true God that’ll kill you when he sees fit one day),,, mum’s would be happy not to have to change nappies, as we would be created with prexisting knowledge of the art of self bum wiping. But would we still call some woman our mum? Would we look half like her and half like god? Or half like the plumber and other half Ala?!!
..can you please ask god why it is not so?
my point: If This place was created by intelligent design why did the designer sabotage his own work in so many ways, and preprogram such counter productive attributes to humans (and other animals) such as basic survival instinct? I’m sure that god’s human “representatives” could come up with a creative answer to that(since Jesus has done a no-show for the last 2000 years. ( Luckily santa still comes once a year).. I am however quite satisfied with the scientific reason, that being that humans are a subspecies of animal. On the day of reckoning, are we to be judged on acting out with the gift of free will? Or be punished for existing in a poorly designed vessel, even though we had no say weather we wanted to be created or not!?
p.s There is no such thing as free will in the religious sence, since no-one chooses to be born. But people do choose to get drunk and have sex..Pretty sure that’s how I got here : )

sls48's avatar

There’s nothing in the Bible about dinosaurs, right? Noah supposedly took all the animals, correct? Good questions! Let’s try to provide some reasonable answers. The word DINOSAUR was not invented or even used until the 1840’s, so obviously it is not mentioned in the Holy Bible, whose final Book of Revelations, was finished in about 70AD.But for that matter, neither does any other WORLD RELIGION or CIVILIZED CULTURE use the same word. But what the Bible and many other ancient WORLD CULTURES have done is leave behind some SYMBOLIC CLUES that are often OVERWHELMINGLY OBVIOUS. Let’s start with what the Bible can tell us, OK? The “DINOSAUR” Book of the Bible is the writings of the Prophet Job who describes SYMBOLIC COLOSSAL CREATURES of the Land and Sea, while the Prophet Isaiah writes about the Air-borne MONSTER SERPENTS. In Jobs descriptions of both Land and Sea-dwelling MONSTEROUS REPTILES, He uses the name BEHEMOTH which means “LARGE BEAST”. Some have falsely interpreted
this name to mean an Elephant or Hippo, but the scriptures will debunk these claims.
The BEHEMOTH of Job 40:15–24 describes a LARGE BEAST who MOVES HIS TAIL LIKE
A CEDAR TREE! Even Mastodons & Mammoths did not have tails as big as Trees!! Only
a select few PREHISTORIC DINOSAURS had such TREE-SIZE TAILS and the massive
Brontosaurus was one of them that did!! Also this “LARGE BEAST” was said to DRINK
UP THE RIVER with his thirst and again Not even Elephants or Hippos could drink the
1000’s of gallons of water that a Bronto could gulp, whenever he took drink!! Another clue
is the actual BONES(ie: FOSSILS) of this LARGE BEAST were said to be as STRONG AS
IRON BARS which makes sense, considering the many TONS OF BODY MASS this
GIGANTIC CREATURE was holding up with his skeleton!! Its one thing to have a 50+ Ton
stationary Building made of STEEL FRAMING to hold up such COLOSSAL LOADS, but
imagine them being stable, during an EARTHQUAKE, or WALKING AROUND LIKE THE
How do know they were REPTILES from the Bible? Some are called MONSTER SERPENTS, SEA MONSTERS, etc, and most SERPENT REPTILES have SCALES,
CLAWS, SHARP TEETH, in modern times, so its a leap of faith. Again, SYMBOLISM
is what the Bible provides and although the word FOSSIL or DINOSAUR is not spoken in
the scriptures, their equilavent meanings can be derived from the SYMBOLISMS. For
example BEHEMOTH means “LARGE BEAST” similar to the “MONSTROUS LIZARD”
of DINOSAUR. While FOSSILS are not always referring to PETRIFIED BONES, as their
are FOSSILIZED PLANTS, INSECTS, SEA LIFE, etc, it is certainly referring to the BIG
BONES of the Dinosaurs!! The SEA MONSTER REPTILES are most often centered around
the creature known as LEVIATHAN which means “LARGE SEA MONSTER, SERPENT,
DRAGON BEAST” from Job 41:1–20 is most likely a description of PLIOSAUR, the T-REX
of the ancient oceans. In Jobs account the LEVIATHAN is vividly described having very
TERRIBLE TEETH(ie: Dinosaur means “TERRIBLE LIZARDS”), closely joined SCALES,
and in King Davids account it is a PIERCING SERPENT or DRAGON that God Almighty
will PUNISH, BREAK ITS HEADS, etc. Again back in Job he speaks of REMEMBERING
THE BATTLE with Leviathan? What BATTLE? This is where Bible Symbolism helps to
understand these clues. The REMEMBERED BATTLE with Leviathan(ie: Old Serpent The
Devil) was the WAR IN HEAVEN when Satan & His Demonic Army was defeated and cast
out!! This is a whole another story in itself, but suffice to say that to study more similar
evidences from OTHER WORLD CULTURES, I recommend checking out: (2) The Mysterious Ica Stones of Ica, Peru. (3) The Clay Figurines of Dinosaurs in Acambaro, Mexico. (4) The Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas. (5) The Turkmenistan Plateau Discovery in 1995. (6) The Hava Supai Canyan in Northern Arizona…. and so on!
These are just a few eye openers to get you started!... As for Noah and the Dinosaurs,
there is no mention of them on the Ark, but logic suggests that DINO EGGS would’ve
been much easier to transport, ya think?! They would’ve made awesome omelets!!. SLS

breedmitch's avatar

@sls48 Yes. Well. And then there’s science. But thanks for playing.
I have faith, too. In the fossil record.

sls48's avatar

So do I friend, but faith in FOSSILS is like FOSSIL FUEL, it doesnt last long; you keep
filling back up again; it stinks if you get it on ya; too much will BURN YA ALIVE; and its
just TOO COSTLY to keep using it!! But thats the mentality of the OLD SCHOOL AGE that
PAINFUL, INCONVENIENT TRUTH to those who refuse to look beyond Fossils and look
clues require very little DIRT DIGGING, just FACT FINDING TREASURE HUNTS!! Start
digging on the Internet, the freest research there is and go from there!! SLS

breedmitch's avatar

Oh the Internet. Well, if its on the Internet it has to be true.
ha ha. Creation Science. Now that’s a laugh!

iamthemob's avatar

@sls48 – Creationism isn’t a science – it’s apologetics and weak anecdotal evidence as a critique of evolutionary theory.

That’s not science…that’s sticking your fingers in your ears and humming real loud.

Answer this question




to answer.


Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther