An aura of mystery surrounds the dinosaurs. Where did they come from? Did they evolve? Did they really live millions of years ago? What happened to them?
Is there any living today?
Has any human being ever seen a live dinosaur?
What the Bible say?

The Magratheans planted dinosaur bones in the earth to fool the humans. Those pesky mice.



Seriously though the Bible is concerned with Humans not long extinct animals. The species Homo sapiens sapiens have only been on this earth for about 50,000 years.
The last of the dinosaurs lived during the cretaceous period (between 146 to 65 million years ago).

As for the bible we get less than a chapter before modern man takes the stage.
And according to the Jewish Calender that was about 5700 years ago.
And its poetry.

The Paleontology Edition of the Bible extensively discusses dinosaurs and related extinct life.

The Bible doesn't discuss this issue. The Bible is there to give people a moral compass.

Has any human being ever seen a live dinosaur?

:yes: most definitely.

live dinosaurYes I see them all the time ... shams.

Ever heard of an alligator ... :hyper:

Good one. Yes, the alligator has been around since the time of the dino. An amazing creature.

off topics and posts that are not serious were deleted

sorry braiki, one of my comments was in jest, but i thought that the question about the bible and dinosaurs was in jest too.....

it's alright. Thats why I wouldn't contribute in such topics, cause I wouldn't have anything to say about it

it's alright. Thats why I wouldn't contribute in such topics, cause I wouldn't have anything to say about it
my contribution was in the lines of 'you can't be serious'. so i answered in kind.

To be honest anything about dinosaurs or such related material is not discussed in the bible. What the bible is for is to provide guidance to people to live a good and just life and it explains it through the parables, psalms and other wonderful scriptures found within its holy pages.

From the last few threads of you wondering about the Bible...
This one made my day LOL

From the last few threads of you wondering about the Bible...
This one made my day LOL

The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24-31).
Genesis 1:24-31

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Can I say, God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur.

This fits exactly with the evidence from the fossil record.


Any disagreement?

I fail to see your point...
What extra knowledge/views would we get if we found dinosaurs in the Bible?
Are we supposed to?

I fail to see your point...
What extra knowledge/views would we get if we found dinosaurs in the Bible?
Are we supposed to?

I hope you cannot say, don’t show your inquisitiveness; don’t try to take lesson from The Holly Bible.
Go and sit in corner in the room , watch movie and read what we ask you to read.
The thing which I appreciate very much, most of the western are open minded, dynamic and above the prejudice ( With an expectation of course, in western there are warmonger , puppets , Zion’s agent and I exclude them). So , it is a pleasure to discuss with these open minded indeed truth seekers.

The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24-31)

Do you agree with the above?

Can I say, God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur.

When Dinosaurs was created?
I think asking the question, I am not moving against the Bible?
Please concentrate to this point for a while.

Die hard Christians will not believe the way I do, is that God created everything but evolution was the process of how we get our present animals, people today. He was there in the beginning to start the process and allowed nature to take over. Dinosaurs evolved from creatures of the sea and became the carnivorous land animals we know.

Die hard Christians will not believe the way I do, is that God created everything but evolution was the process of how we get our present animals, people today. He was there in the beginning to start the process and allowed nature to take over. Dinosaurs evolved from creatures of the sea and became the carnivorous land animals we know.

Hope I shall enjoy to share /discuss with you.
Lot of question are there till unsolved.
Have no time today.
Thank you and good night.

So I'm close-minded?
shams...I never said I disagreed. You are free to ask Christians if there was a mention of whatever whacky thing in the Bible.

I just thought it was funny.
That's all.

I think we are getting into the realms young earth creation vs old earth creation.

ok here goes the story..
seven days...symbolic for..
the big bang, the early organisms, the fish, the first birds, the dinosaurs, the annihilation of dinasaurs and the early men coming along....from neanderthal to homos erectus. there goes. gently gently.
the bible's first book is there to explain that God created all earth....it does not explain how it went. there is no conflict unless you are so stubborn to take the genesis literally.

So I'm close-minded?
shams...I never said I disagreed. You are free to ask Christians if there was a mention of whatever whacky thing in the Bible.

I just thought it was funny.
That's all.

The Holy Bible is a respected scripture to me.
Yes , I don’t endorse the versions available.
I am not wacky about your Bible but wish to share my thought with the member.
Be informed, I don’t post any thing for creating fun, please.

ok here goes the story..
seven days...symbolic for..
the big bang, the early organisms, the fish, the first birds, the dinosaurs, the annihilation of dinasaurs and the early men coming along....from neanderthal to homos erectus. there goes. gently gently.
the bible's first book is there to explain that God created all earth....it does not explain how it went. there is no conflict unless you are so stubborn to take the genesis literally.

I have separate thread on Big Bang and the Bible.
Dose The Bible agree with Big Bang?
Please post your reply there.

The Holy Bible is a respected scripture to me.
Yes , I don’t endorse the versions available.
I am not wacky about your Bible but wish to share my thought with the member.
Be informed, I don’t post any thing for creating fun, please.

My dear shamsery,
I respect the Bible too. No problem on that. We agree. I wouldn't call the Bible a book of madmen, nor would I call it a book that promotes violence. Not my nature and I think many of my posts have shown that already.

I never said you were whacky and it's not 'my' Bible.
I simply stated you are free to speculate about the Bible from the Christians, even about dinosaurs.
I know you don't intend to post many things for fun but they just turn up that way. At least in my view.

I have separate thread on Big Bang and the Bible.
Dose The Bible agree with Big Bang?
Please post your reply there.
do you realise that the big bang is a phenomenon explored only in the last century, and the bible is thousands of years old?

My dear shamsery,
I respect the Bible too. .

I respect too.

Did I showed any disrespect to the Bible(Even it is present version)?

My dear shamsery,
I wouldn't call the Bible a book of madmen,

(2)]nor would I call it a book that promotes violence.

1. Do you invite to comment on the subject with evidence?

2. Are you indicating any other scripture? Can you prove your comment with edivence ?
3. Do you wish lo listen analysis on the present Bible which I naturally avoid?

4. Are you provocating?

My dear shamsery,
I simply stated you are free to speculate about the Bible from the Christians, even about dinosaurs.


Do you think , I am making fun asking the question?
Get in to it.
Take deeper look, please.

do you realise that the big bang is a phenomenon explored only in the last century, and the bible is thousands of years old?

1.Why I shall not understand ?

2. How old is the Bible?

Answer please and don't skip.

The recently-invented completely unproven theory of evolution directly contradicts the teaching of the Torah that the world was created by G-d, and is 5768 years old.

The recently-invented completely unproven theory of evolution directly contradicts the teaching of the Torah that the world was created by G-d, and is 5768 years old.

1. Not talking on Theory of Evolution, Big Bang theory and theory of evolution are two different concept. Am I wrong?

2. Well noted. The world come in to existance 5768 yeras before.

Though you have not mentioned , wast it BC or CE.

Any disagreement from any readers?

1. Don't the theories of evolution and the big bang go together?

2. CE

1. Don't the theories of evolution and the big bang go together?

2. CE

1. The book On the Origin of Species of Charles Robert Darwin known as theory of evolution.
Full Title of the book is :On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
It dealt with human evolution. If you mean after Big Bang there was evolution, I can agree with you. But after Big Bang.

2. Christian Era.

"1. Do you invite to comment on the subject with evidence?

2. Are you indicating any other scripture? Can you prove your comment with edivence ?"

Yaaaar, seriously, what the **** is this?
I never implied any of your questions at all...
Read my post again. And with a keen eye...
You'll get it. Very simple idea.

1.Why I shall not understand ?

2. How old is the Bible?

Answer please and don't skip.


first of all i am not obliged to answer to any of your badly worded posts.
it's hard sometimes figuring out what you really mean.

why i shall not understand? as in what?

the big bang theory is a scientific theory, the bible is not a science book.

2. how old is the bible?

the bible, you mean the bible as a whole, with the old and new testaments? i guess it would be 2000 yrs old.

2. Christian Era.

Common Era.

Gotta rush I'm late for work.

Yes, I wish to clarify that with CE I meant Common Era, not Christian Era, as I'm not a Christian, of course.

As for the age of the Torah, according to Judaism it precede the world's creation 5768 years ago; on the contrary, the Torah is the "blueprints" for the world; G-d looked into it and created the world.

1. Not talking on Theory of Evolution, Big Bang theory and theory of evolution are two different concept. Am I wrong?

2. Well noted. The world come in to existance 5768 yeras before.

Though you have not mentioned , wast it BC or CE.

Any disagreement from any readers?


FOTFLMAO 5768 years old... The so-called Ussher date for when God created the universe and earth is October 23rd, 4004 BCE. You forgot to mention later writers refined his thesis and argued that creation occurred at 6.00pm on the 22nd of October, 4004 BCE, (a Sunday afternoon, I think....)

http://www.tcd.ie/history/Ussher/date.php

All such 'calculations' are usually an attempt to predict the second coming of Christ, apocalypse, end of the world, etc etc etc. So far Christ seems to be around 14 years late... :angel:

I have to admit, god did a really great job on the dinosaur fossils, all the microscopic marine fauna, and making the isotopic clocks all pretty consistent with current estimates of around 15 Billion years for the visible Universe, and around 4.5 Billion years for the age of the earth. Getting the microwave background radiation just so was also a work of fantastic proportions. :hyper:

"1. Do you invite to comment on the subject with evidence?

2. Are you indicating any other scripture? Can you prove your comment with edivence ?"

Yaaaar, seriously, what the **** is this?
I never implied any of your questions at all...
Read my post again. And with a keen eye...
You'll get it. Very simple idea.

Problem, you deliberately turn the issue.

This is post # 24

My dear shamsery,
I respect the Bible too. No problem on that. We agree.Q#1. I wouldn't call the Bible a book of madmen, nor would I call it a book that promotes violence. Not my nature and I think many of my posts have shown that already.

I never said you were whacky and it's not 'my' Bible.
I simply stated you are free to speculate about the Bible from the Christians, even about dinosaurs.
I know you don't intend to post many things for fun but they just turn up that way. At least in my view.


This was my answer to your post.
Post # 31

1. Do you invite to comment on the subject with evidence?

2. Are you indicating any other scripture? Can you prove your comment with evidence?
3. Do you wish lo listen analysis on the present Bible wich I naturally avoid?

4. Are you provocating?

Now let us proceed step by step.

Your question and my answer are very clear.
Let me rewrite, 1. Do you invite me to comment on the subject with evidence?

2. nor would I call it a book that promotes violence.
My answer: I under stood from your post that the Bible do not promote violence but there is scripture that promote violence. Hope my interpretation acceptable to you. Then my reply:

2. Are you indicating any other scripture? Can you prove your comment with evidence?
Did I made any mistake exposing the inner meaning of your question?

Your comment, please look bellow.

I know you don't intend to post many things for fun but they just turn up that way. At least in my view.

If others turn it to fun, should you blame this layman, who wish to know?
We were not talking on violence, killing , neither we were comparing the principal question with other scripture.
You are the best judge of your conscious, do you aim blame me.

How this two words come 1. Madmen, 2. a book that promotes violence.
Man is not above the error.
That also apply to me.
I shall be obliged if you point out my fault.
Thanks.

FOTFLMAO 5768 years old... The so-called Ussher date for when God created the universe and earth is October 23rd, 4004 BCE.You forgot to mention later writers refined his thesis and argued that creation occurred at 6.00pm on the 22nd of October, 4004 BCE, (a Sunday afternoon, I think....)



This is very nice; we are getting different data about God’s creation of earth.
Is that not enlightening us?

Will you help me please?

FOTFLMAO 5768 years old.


Please write few words on it.

Umm undercover, the Jewish year is 5768. Day 1 (that is -5678 years ago) of the Jewish calender is creation.

This is very nice; we are getting different data about God’s creation of earth.
Is that not enlightening us?

Thats the point Shamsery, these religiously derived dates are NOT based on data. I am not hopeful of enlightening you, ever. :rolleyes: Please see http://www.evula.org/solarsystem/Resources/muppet.jpg

There are many, many myths of earth creation, the key word here, and its a bit of a hint, is myth. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

The scientific data, as I said, puts Earth formation at ~4.5 Billion years ago. And there is zero evidence that a supernatural being had anything to do with it. :) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Universe is trickier, but current estimates are anywhere from 11.2 Billion to 20 Billion years ago, with the smart money around 13.5 Billion years. If big bang theory is correct, again, no evidence for a supernatural being is required after 10^-34 of a second following the 'bang'. :) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Universe

For my money, this guy said it all... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnRqYMTpXHc

don't speak in such difficult words, shamsery won't understand.

Your fault is that I never even asked you about that.
I was talking about myself.
I eliminated 'It's' when I said 'Not my nature' to argue like that.
That doesn't mean you argue like that or that you're invited to argue against it.

don't speak in such difficult words, shamsery won't understand.

Respected minerva,
I am from IndoBangla subcontinent.
We never hesitate to learn sitting before the feet of our teacher.
You can teach me and honestly I donot know the meaning.

But where we are moving?
Let us back to the main point.

Shamsery

Main points:
- There is no connection between the bible and dinosaurs.
- Bible appeared around 2000 - 3000 yrs ago, man around 50,000 - 200,000 years ago, dinosaurs exinct 65 million years ago.
- Earth was created 4.5 Billion years ago
- Universe created 14 Billion years ago
- There are lots of myths concerning how earth was created.
They are all interesting, all wrong, and simply reflect the constant struggle of mankind seeking explanations for the world, its origin, and his/her place within it.

OK?

But it's a fact that there are scientific errors in the Bible, agree?

Shamsery

Main points:
- There is no connection between the bible and dinosaurs.
I think , there may be something.
Do you hesitate to examine?

Here's an article from a Torah point of view:

Evolution: Myths and Facts

Introduction

It is commonly believed that Darwin's Theory of Evolution has disproved the Biblical account of creation in general, and individual creation of species in particular. The result is that many reject the truth of Torah because they are convinced that science has vindicated evolution over revelation. However, both the creationists and the evolutionists tend to labor under gross misconceptions about Darwinism and its status within science. The purpose of this essay is to demystify the evolutionary concept so that the rational person can decide for him/herself regarding its plausibility.

To talk meaningfully about species evolving, we need a working definition of species. For practical purposes, we will use a common, working definition, even though it only strictly applies to sexually reproducing organisms, and that is: A species is comprised of individuals capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring. Thus horses are species and donkeys are species but the product of their interbreeding, mules, are not a species for they are not capable of producing fertile offspring.

If we define evolution as simply a change in species over time, any student of biology must agree that species do in fact evolve. The question is, how much.

If, on the other hand, we define evolution in the Darwinian sense—as a process of random mutation and natural selection by which all living beings have arisen by chance from single-celled organisms over 100's of millions of years—we may not be on equally firm ground from a scientific perspective.

To explain, random mutation refers to tiny, unpredictable changes in the hereditary qualities of a living being that get passed down to the next generation. If this slight change improves the chances of survival of the offspring, the next generation of that species will have slightly more of this new quality. This is the concept of survival of the fittest, which is equivalent to the term natural selection. Darwin argued that the cumulative effect of these small hereditary changes coupled with natural selection should eventually lead to new species and suggested that all species have come into existence from common ancestry in this way.

Believers in Darwin like to cite the famous example of the peppered moth. Individuals of this British species are either black or white. The white form used to predominate until the industrial revolution when the black variant gained a selective advantage and became far more common. This was because the soot in the atmosphere from the burning of coal darkened the tree trunks where the moths would rest, rendering the white moths easy prey while the black moths remained well camouflaged. Once industrial processes became more efficient and the trees became lighter in color, the white variety returned to dominance while the frequency of the black variety declined.

These microevolutionary changes have been interpreted as proof of Darwin's idea that species have arisen in this way, but there are several issues neglected by jumping to this conclusion. First, the peppered moth population started out with both varieties. Thus there was no mutation to be naturally selected, and therefore no Darwinian evolution. Second, no speciation has occurred here—only changes in the frequency of one variety over the other. And third, even if one of the variants had gone extinct, it would not exemplify Evolution, but rather Devolution since there would be a loss, not a gain in hereditary information.

Microevolution also occurs in dogs. All those familiar breeds of dogs are all one species, Canis familiaris, whether it's a chihuahua or great dane. That's why breeders are careful about with whom their thoroughbreds mate; they don't want a mutt. But with all the thousands of years of microevolution of dogs through selective breeding, no speciation has occurred, and each type of dog is capable of producing fertile offspring with another.

With plants, we see the same phenomenon. For instance, one might think that cabbage, kohlrabi, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, kale and broccoli are different species but in fact it is not so. If you allow them to interpollinate, within several generations all the produce will look like cabbage. That's because they are all one species, Brassica oleracea, and the changes that growers achieve through selective breeding are microevolutionary, and not speciation.

In some cases, we do find speciation occurring, but never through adding bits of hereditary information. We have seen in both lab and field how some plant and animal species have developed or split into two such that the populations can no longer interbreed to produce fertile offspring. However, in none of these cases did this come about through random mutation or any other gradual addition of hereditary information. On the contrary, any genetic additions have been non-evolutionary, through hybridization, polyploidy, etc. Besides, in most cases cited, the new species come about not through an addition but rather through a reduction in the amount of hereditary information. Hence none of the new species lend any credence to the idea that life gradually evolved from simple to complex forms.

In short, in the several centuries that we have been making detailed biological observations, and in thousands of years of selectively breeding plants and animals, we have not seen any Darwinian evolution in the lab, farm or field. That does not mean it could not happen; it just means that we have no direct evidence of it ever having happened.

So what is the scientific status of Darwinism, or macroevolution, i.e., the idea that all living species evolved from a common origin through random mutation and natural selection?

Can we say that it is a fact? Well, if we define "fact" as that which has been empirically observed, then no.

Can we say it is a theory? Well, if a theory is an idea which generates falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested through experimentation, then once again the answer is no. The normative use in science of the term "theory" involves the necessity to be able to disprove it through experimental observations. We cannot call macroevolution a scientific theory because we cannot go back in time to make the necessary observations that would either support or refute it.

So if macroevolution is not a scientific fact and not a scientific theory, then what is it?

It is certainly not rationally compelling in the sense of deductive reasoning where one uses syllogisms of the type that A implies B and B implies C and therefore A implies C. These types of proofs are strong logical proofs characteristic of philosophy and mathematics, but not the natural sciences.

Science progresses using inductive reasoning, that is, rational inferences from what is known or observed to what is not known, or what has not been observed. But within scientific inference, there are stronger and weaker methods.

First, when one infers from the known to the unknown, it is more reliable to use interpolation than to extrapolation. That is, if one has measured a variable quantity at two points, one will be more secure in estimating the situation at some intermediate condition between the measurements than in some state that is beyond the range of observation.

For instance, consider the relationship of temperature and density in water. If we know the density of water at 4C and 99C, and then try to predict some other values at other temperatures, we will be tremendously better off interpolating the density between these two temperatures than extrapolating even one or several degrees outside this range. After all, with one more degree of heat, the water vaporizes and the density crashes, while at the other end, cooler water becomes less dense instead of more dense, an anomaly in all of nature. Besides, just several degrees cooler yet yields a solid, ice, which unlike any other solid form is actually less dense than its liquid form.

Evolution is based on the weaker inferential method of extrapolation and not the stronger method of interpolation. We scientists have been studying organisms in the lab, field, and fossil record for only two or three centuries, and yet we attempt to make conclusions over 100's of millions of years. These are not modest extrapolations, but very big ones indeed.

Within inferences based on extrapolation, we again have two types: forward and backward. When we extrapolate forward from a known present to an unknown future, our inferences are much more secure than when we use the same means to infer backwards into an unknown past, and especially a distant past.

(cont.)

To exemplify forward extrapolation, imagine we have two numbers, 2 and 3, which will interact and produce some result. Depending on whether we add, subtract, multiply, divide, take roots or exponents, we will get a small range of possible results based on extrapolation forward from known conditions. If however we end with the numbers 2 and 3, and try to extrapolate backward, i.e., to determine which numbers have combined and in what way to yield these two numbers, we will be confronted by a truly infinite number of possibilities. Clearly backward extrapolation is a far more uncertain and variable method than forward extrapolation.

The magnitude of the uncertainty involved is exemplified by the following anecdote. When Professor James Brawer was a student at a major North American university, he decided he would like to see for himself how accurate are the methods of dating fossil remains. He purchased from the local Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals the remains of a recently deceased dog and buried them in his back yard. Several years later, while digging in the garden, he "accidentally" came upon them and promptly called academic experts in Paleontology, Geology, and Zoology to find out about the bones he had found. All the experts agreed that the remains were that of a dog, but beyond that there was not much consensus. Questions of how heavy the animal was, how old at death, and for how long it had been buried got answers that varied by factors of 2 to 4 times! If this is the uncertainty over a period of several years, what is the case with purported periods of centuries, millennia, or millions of years?

Of course any uncertainty over a short period of time will be greatly magnified over a long period. In science, we calculate uncertainty using confidence intervals. This is the likelihood and margin of error we attach to our estimates. The farther into time we guesstimate, the larger these confidence intervals become, but not in a linear or gradual way. Indeed it is the tendency of confidence intervals to widen geometrically with linear increase in time. In other words, errors multiply. For example, if doubling the time gives four times the uncertainty; tripling the time will result in nine times the uncertainty, and so on.

All this applies even when environmental conditions are constant. But what happens when the uniformitarian principle is violated, i.e., when conditions have been variable over the purported period of study? For example, if we have two substances that when mixed together produce a third, we cannot assume that the rate of production is always the same. It is possible that some catalyst has been present in the environment that changes the rate of reaction. Modern chemistry has discovered many such catalysts that can increase reaction rates by thousands of times, even though they are only present in minute amounts.

All the fossil and rock dating techniques rely on the uniformitarian principle and yet every worker in the field believes that it most certainly has been violated in very significant ways, rendering calculations unfathomably vague.

The most common of these methods is carbon dating. This involves comparing the relative amounts of two forms (isotopes) of carbon in the fossilized remains. The idea is that while the organism was alive it had a known amount of each type of carbon but that once it has died, the amount of one type decreases at a known rate through a process of radioactive decay. This would allow the scientist to calculate the age of the fossil.

One of the problems with this is that the relative amounts originally in the living organism depend on such environmental factors as temperature, humidity, radiation, and magnetic fields, solar flux, and ambient levels of organic combustion, all of which have been subject to change to an unknown degree in the distant past. Consequently experts continually revise their opinions and frequently disagree about dates with high and low estimates varying by as much as 20 times and more.

Rocks are dated in a similar way using elements other than carbon, and these dates are even more variable. In fact the very same rock dated with different elements, samarium and potassium, have given results that vary by one billion years. Considering that the lower age estimate was 0.7 billion years, the margin of error was even more than the estimated age!

Another issue is that Darwin's Theory of Evolution makes fairly specific predictions about what the fossil record should reveal about the history of life on earth. The fossil record is presumed to be like a vertical time line with more recent organisms near the surface and more ancient ones deeper down. In his 1859 book, Origin of Species, Darwin predicted that the fossil record will show that 1) species appear gradually, 2) change constantly, 3) disappear gradually, and 4) missing links between major types will be filled in.

After some century and a half of digging up fossils all over the world, we now know that all of Darwin's predictions have been refuted: 1) Species appear suddenly, 2) show no significant change, 3) disappear suddenly, and 4) the missing link problem gets more acute instead of more resolved with time. Under these conditions, Darwin himself would have dropped evolution as an explanation for the origin and diversity of life.

Evolutionists have themselves noted these glaring flaws in Darwinian theory and have sought to deal with them in the manner of Stephen J. Gould who has suggested that speciation is a sudden and dramatic event which therefore does not show up in the fossil record. Gould himself states that "the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change," and then proposed that "macroevolution proceeds by the rare success of these hopeful monsters, not by continuous small changes within populations." It sounds nice, but from a scientific standpoint, the fatal objection to his punctuated equilibrium notion is the absolute lack of any conceivable mechanism by which the necessary genetic and organic changes could occur.

In addition to all the above, are the unanswered challenges to macroevolution posed by information theory and molecular genetics by such scientists as Lee Spetner in prestigious journals such as Science and the Journal of Theoretical Biology. Published over 30 years ago, Spetner's calculations show that billions of years are insufficient to evolve even one new species, and yet not one scientist has ever even attempted to refute his arguments in a scientific journal. In a recent book , Spetner calculates the likelihood of one species evolving from another at no better than 1:102738. This is comparable to the probability of every person on the planet entering a daily lottery with 6 billion tickets and the same person winning every day for a year. Of course everyone would agree that such an eventuality would be impossible.

Many, if not most, leading scientists agree. Royal Society astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle says that a tornado generating a jet in a junkyard is more likely than one species evolving from another. Nobel Prize-winning Chemist Harold Urey, famous for his leading role in recreating the building blocks of life from inorganic matter, has been widely quoted that "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere."

Above and beyond all the probabilistic arguments is the biochemical challenge to evolution. When Darwin proposed his theory, no scientist could imagine in his wildest dreams the incredible chemical intricacies underlying every biological process. This posed a new problem for the Darwinists: irreducible complexity. This means that if any one of dozens of key elements of a biochemical process would be missing, the entire process would simply shut down. Just as the dysfunction of one small screw could destroy a jetliner, so too one missing chemical can terminate an essential life process such as photosynthesis, respiration, blood clotting, or reproduction.

This is an impossible outcome for Darwinian evolution. Macroevolution requires a progression of one beneficial mutation after another, with each generation becoming more fit and more developed than the previous one, until more complex organisms evolve from simpler ones. But if an irreducibly complex system of, say, 10 elements is to evolve, than element 1 has to add some fitness, element 2 has to add some fitness, and so on until all the parts are in place. The problem with the complex system is that elements 1, 2, 3… and 9 do not add any survivorship to the species, and there is no natural selection favoring those intermediate stages. On the contrary, they will be selected against. Thus irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve into existence, and therefore higher life forms cannot evolve from simpler ones.

Summary:

The notion that the diversity of life arose through random mutation and natural selection is neither an empirical fact nor a scientific theory, but rather a groundless conjecture based on weak, inferential methods of backward extrapolation through eons of unobserved time over unknown conditions.

According to Darwin's own criteria in Origin of Species, he himself would have rejected evolution based on today's knowledge of the fossil record. Even the most modern formulations of Darwinian evolution have been shown to be impossible, based on unchallenged statistical models of molecular genetics, as well as the irreducible biochemical complexity of all physiological processes.

All this does not prove that the Torah is true or that the Biblical story of creation is true. What it does show is that accepting Darwinian evolution requires a leap of faith that may be more radical and less substantiated than to believe that G–d created the world in six days and on the seventh day He rested.

Mono,

the nice thing about your post is the way it starts with actual facts and reasonable logic but neatly slips in the unfounded yet key conclusions. This intelligent design propaganda is written to try and slip in creationism making making it seem to be science (when it isn't) and degrade Evolution from a science (when it is).

Ice - there are scientific errors in the Bible, Quraan, Tora, and any scientific book ever written. The great thing about science is it is always changing, and generally open to change based on the evidence. Religion never does that. It claims to have mystically received the answers, and is the antithesis of change. Thats why science has given us antibiotics, communication satellites, GPS, the internet, et al. And religion has us still stoning people to death.

The Quran is not a book of science, however the scientific facts which are stated in the holy Quran confirmed by today sceince to be true, in other words no errors in the Quran unless you can prove otherwise.

To believe and have faith, no proof is required.

Here's an article from a Torah point of view:

Evolution: Myths and Facts

Hope it is rich and interesting article.
Before comment, need to study.

To believe and have faith, no proof is required.




It is conviction of believer.
I do agree.
But there is no problem to examine your own believe by consciousness.
I think that is better for open-minded people.
But you are talking about The Bible and Dinosaurs.
Isn’t it?

Ice - there are scientific errors in the Bible, Quraan, Tora, and any scientific book ever written. The great thing about science is it is always changing, and generally open to change based on the evidence. Religion never does that. It claims to have mystically received the answers, and is the antithesis of change. Thats why science has given us antibiotics, communication satellites, GPS, the internet, et al. And religion has us still stoning people to death.

Is not nice to prove the error in the Holy Qur'an?

Yes we know , science some times takes U turn.

Until you prove error or any U turn , how you can claim, there is scientific error in Qur'an?
Until you prove, you are to agree with the thesis , there is no error in Qur'an?
Looking for your antithesis.

It is conviction of believer.
I do agree.
But there is no problem to examine your own believe by consciousness.
I think that is better for open-minded people.
But you are talking about The Bible and Dinosaurs.
Isn’t it?

We've been questioning it for the past 3000 years.

I suggest you google Gerald Schroeder he has some interesting things to say.

That is why for me at least, I believe in a Creator but the Creator allowed things to evolve in a natural state. Now as far as humans being linked to monkeys, I have a hard time with that but maybe one day we will get definitive answers as to where we originated from.

Oh,surprise surprise.. No answer... And thats the way it'll stay huh? That took 5 mins guys. Jes....

Marianna.. DNA testing shows our closest relative are Chimpanzees... 98% same DNA

Let us not go to the off topic.

I don’t want that the sword of Damocles fall on the shoulder of thread.

The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24-31).

Do you have any doubt?

Let us not go to the off topic.

I don’t want that the sword of Damocles fall on the shoulder of thread.

The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24-31).

Do you have any doubt?

I am looking for the Answer.
What happen?

please stick to the topic & respect Shamsery's thread, it is about the Bible and dinosaurs

To be honest this thread is played out and long served its "usefulness".

As far as the Torah is concerned, there are two possibilities: Either their bones were implanted in the earth by G-d when the world was created, or they lived and they died out at some point in time, possibly during the Great Flood. Either way, the earth is only 5768 years old.

Sorry but carbon dating has proven the earth is billions of years old and all the physical evidence proves that the earth is older than man and civilization itself. Evolution of animal species, plants, and the planet itself takes time and science, the physical proof is out there to back that up. WHY is it so freaking hard to believe that God can create an earth which is billions of years old?? And why the heck would God "plant" anything? Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Science hasn't proven anything at all, because science doesn't deal with certainties. Scientists didn't live back then and see what happened themselves; rather, they SPECULATE on PROBABILITIES based on the evidence they see and develop THEORIES to explain the phenomena they see. All this is explained at length in the article I posted above.

Why would G-d have made the earth look older than it is? Perhaps to "give room for the one who wishes to err, to err." Also, keep in mind that He created Adam as an adult too.

Carbon dating isn't a theory but a fact. The bones of dinosaurs found all around the world show that these beasts roamed the earth millions of years ago. You can go ahead and believe the way you do but I refuse to throw aside the facts of these animals and of the real age of the earth which is in the billions and not thousands. Jesus was alive 2,000 years ago, the pyramids of Egypt were built even before He was placed on this earth. There are tools made by ancient man during the Stone age and Bronze age, sorry but no....calcuations that the earth is only a few thousand years old compared to the length of human history and fossil record which refutes this, showing that the earth is in fact billions of years old is logical and scientifically proven. No theory there. Tests have been done and with the advent of modern science showing us that our planet took many millinea to be created into what it is today and that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years before...that is hard fact and not theory.

Carbon dating isn't a theory but a fact. The bones of dinosaurs found all around the world show that these beasts roamed the earth millions of years ago. You can go ahead and believe the way you do but I refuse to throw aside the facts of these animals and of the real age of the earth which is in the billions and not thousands. Jesus was alive 2,000 years ago, the pyramids of Egypt were built even before He was placed on this earth. There are tools made by ancient man during the Stone age and Bronze age, sorry but no....calcuations that the earth is only a few thousand years old compared to the length of human history and fossil record which refutes this, showing that the earth is in fact billions of years old is logical and scientifically proven. No theory there. Tests have been done and with the advent of modern science showing us that our planet took many millinea to be created into what it is today and that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years before...that is hard fact and not theory.
now can we carbon date the bibles?

The Dead Sea Scrolls can be but sure someone will start claiming that the bible was false. Nothing new in this forum.

I can't believe that you're actually discussing this with mono.

Sometimes I just have to put my 2 cents in when I read misguided information.

Perhaps Gerald Schroeder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder) can help.

Unfortunately his website is timing out and won't open for me. So here is the Wiki article on him.

marianna, science doesn't deal with certainties, but with theories. Carbon dating is not fact, but theory, because the scientists are merely speculating about a past that they did not and cannot witness. What's more, among the scientists themselves there are vast differences in opinion. Thus, scientific THEORY has not--and cannot--disprove the Torah's account of creation. This was all explained in the article I posted above from the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

5768 years..

We have megalithic temples older than that right here.

5768 years..

We have megalithic temples older than that right here.
while we're at it. let's honour them with pictures thalia.

these are the oldest free standing temples in the world.


ggantija (of the giants) from the air.

http://www.maltesering.com/images/archaeology_mnajdra.jpg

hagar qim entrance.

http://www.missgien.net/stone-age/marvels/pix/hagarqim2.jpg

there are more temples, but i don't want to go off topic too much....

*sings* Helwa ya baladi...


*ahem*

yes.. Ggantija is over 6,000 years old.

And the remains in Ghar Dalam must predate it.

Sorry for being off topic, but I'd love to see them :) one day...

5768 years..

We have megalithic temples older than that right here.

Love to see them. They look lovely.


BTW...no matter what mono says he/she will never convince me that the world is less than 6,000 years old....makes no logical sense to me at all. He/she can keep believing this because that is their right however, I know better. I see proof in fossils, in the pyramids, temples such as this one described....shows the glorious feat of human kind, of the earth....the mountains we see were not made in days but took millions of years, the oceans took millions of years to form...no way the world is less than 6,000 years old. NO WAY!

apropos....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7313005.stm

Origen, one of the greatest of the Fathers of the Church, revered by East and West alike, said this in about the year 225:

""For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally".

The greatest of the Western Fathers, Saint Augustine, says in a treatise called On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis that the creation story expresses the logical structure of the universe rather than a chronological history. He wrote that in about the year 408.

There is a no evidence of living dinosaurs at all, bible or no bile

So the many many dino fossils found all around the world were planted by someone who had a bigger conspiracy in mind? Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Well, this is tangential, but still related to some of the points made:

Study Identifies Dinosaur Protein

In a retrieval once thought unattainable, scientists have recovered and identified proteins in a bone of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex that lived and died and was fossilized 68 million years ago.

The scientists say the success, with advanced research techniques, opens the door for the first time to the exploration of molecular-level relationships of ancient, extinct animals, instead of just relying on their skeletal remains....

Repeated analysis of the T-rex proteins, the researchers said, uncovered new evidence of a link between dinosaurs and birds, a widely held but contentious hypothesis. Three of the seven reconstructed protein sequences were closely related to chickens. The scientists resisted being drawn into speculation on the likely taste of a T-rex drumstick.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/science/13dino.html

For some reason, whenever I see the title of this thread I want to say:

"I don't think the Bible was around at the time of the dinosaurs and even if it had been, they probably wouldn't have been very interested in it..."

http://sciencemode.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/scientists-unearth-duck-billed-dinosaur-ancient-plant-eater.jpg

Can I just say that Carbon-14 dating can't be used to date dinosaur bones... apparently it is widely inaccurate after 40,000 years, then they switch to potassium-argon dating because the half life is longer.

marianna, I'm not right now trying to convince you of the age of the universe; all I'm saying to you is that the opinions of the scientists are THEORIES, not facts, because, quite simply, they were not there, and they are speculating and extrapolating about past events. Even if the (vastly different) theories make sense (a separate issue), that doesn't change the fact that that's what they are: theories, which can be superseded in the same way as they themselves superseded earlier theories, as is evident from the history of science.

marianna, I'm not right now trying to convince you of the age of the universe; all I'm saying to you is that the opinions of the scientists are THEORIES, not facts, because, quite simply, they were not there, and they are speculating and extrapolating about past events. Even if the (vastly different) theories make sense (a separate issue), that doesn't change the fact that that's what they are: theories, which can be superseded in the same way as they themselves superseded earlier theories, as is evident from the history of science.Are you talking about religion ... sounds like it. :hyper:

I'm talking about the theories of science about past events not directly witnessed.