Where religion and science clash - the dinosaurs

[Nikki Sahagin]

First of all again i'm going to state that whilst I am not religious, I am not an aetheist. I am entirely open-minded to the possibility that there may be a God, and also that there may not be.

 

But one thing i've always struggled to make sense of is the dinosaurs. I'm not completely familiar with the Bible inside and out, but if God made the world and then people, then what was the purpose of the dinosaur?

 

Of course we all know at one time dinosaurs, not man, ruled the earth. Now if we look at this from a religious perspective, we could explain it as, God as a creator, created one species, the dinosaur, for whatever reason - a test run etc, and when they failed to live up to his expectations, he eradicated them, and then began again with humans, who became the new species to take over the earth. But if we assume God created the dinosaur before man - what was the reason for them? And if we assume the dinosaur means nothing in God's plan - then how do we make sense of the fact that they pre-dated the human?

[The Collector]

If I was God, I'd have made dinosaurs. Giant reptiles fighting each other, cool. It's the bacteria and fish epochs I don't get.

[Enema]

If god is all-powerful and all-knowing... why would he need to do a test run?

 

In fact, why make humans at all if he knew we'd eat the magic fruit in the garden of nudity and damn ourselves to eternal torture?

[Chat]

My post is being stupid!

[Chat]

I agree with your opening quote - I am open minded also - there could be a God - there may not be - but I think ONE thing is for certain - He/She/It is not what we perceive, and that we are way off on interpretation - though I see why the interpretation is needed.

 

So many atheists have countered the God theory with the Dinosaurs. I see flaws in the argument so it hasn’t left me totally convinced there is no God. Firstly - Dinosaurs pre-date man (OP stated also), there is a big gap between Man and Dinosaurs. Perhaps Dinosaurs and evolution is the answer to how. So what does it all mean?

 

- In the Bible it states that God made the Heavens and the Earth etc, doesn’t say he made man first, in fact, I am pretty sure we were last on the agenda. Though it talks about 7 days, that could be our interpretation to make it more palatable for our minds - if it said God took X millions of years to create man, it probably would of been too much of a mind f*ck for us to believe. So 7 days could be millions of years in "God time" who knows.

 

- If Dinosaurs pre-date Man and were extinct before we showed up - its seems likely that it wouldn't of been mentioned, therefore debunking the usual atheist argument.

 

- I don't think the Bible even talks about any animals or plants to any great extent - anyone up to date on their Bible could contribute here.

 

- The idea that God is testing us seems a bit misconstrued. I think life is testing. I don't think some old dude is sitting on a cloud waiting for us to screw up, I think we go through life, with its trials to grow, for our personalities to develop properly, to have a real understanding of things. Only through lessons learnt, pain and sorrow felt, reality faced and failings recognised do we grow - so life can’t be all easy in order for us to experience these things and GROW. I feel that this is to get us to closer to the God within us. I believe that is where it dwells and why Faith isn't a bad thing.

 

- People for the most part need a physical entity to relate to. Even within conventional and unconventional followings, there is always something to make it seem more real to us. Christians have depictions of Christ and the Cross, Catholics have the Crucifixion and the Cross, Jews have the Star of David, Muslims have the Moon Crest & Prophet Mohammad, Buddhist have varying symbols, Buddha and the Dalai Lama, Hindus have varying Gods usually depicted as some form of human. They all have something we can identify. If God was an eight headed purple beast, there is no way humans can accept it, nor even the simplest of ideas - that it is all within.

 

- Religion is a two sided coin; one side is that a lot of people in this world need boundaries and structure. This is where organised religion fits. You and I may not agree with the operations of these religions - but throughout the above mentioned - the message is basically the same, be good to one another and to yourself. The promise of an afterlife enforces that structure and makes it seem worthwhile. Others dismiss it totally and no have no issue keeping their moral compass facing north. We are all structured differently, as are our spiritual needs.

 

- The other side is control and exploitation. Religion is not the only domain in which this occurs yet we associate it more. Control and exploitations happens in just about anything, anywhere you look. Religions like other causes are used to justify horrible acts, though pointing out that the people committing said acts generally believe they are doing the right thing by whatever agenda it is they have. Being part of a religion does not make you a bad person, misguided or even stupid, your actions as a human being makes you those things.

[Trialbyfire]

I'm agnostic bordering on cynical atheist at present but methinks you need to read the Book of Genesis. God created creatures before Man.

[quankanne]

Perhaps Dinosaurs and evolution is the answer to how.

 

I suspect this is how it's set up: First critters are dinos, which go through a process of evolution to either go extinct or evolve to a point where they've adapted. Oh, and to give basis to Godzilla movies!

 

what the Bible says and what *really* happened appears to be two different things, but you've got to take into consideration that the Bible is the story of a spiritual journey that's peppered with references we can grasp (animals, flooding, etc). They exist, sometimes on the same plane, sometimes on different ones, but they exist ...

[Enema]

Makes more sense if you realize that the bible was written in simple terms that don't reflect reality because it was wholly created by ignorant bronze age nomads.

 

If you abandon your premise that god exists, you won't need to jump through mental hoops and bend your holy book to try and fit the reality we now know.

[Mahatma]

Who says dinosaurs ruled the earth?

 

At the same time god created humans, he also created the remains of these "dinosaurs" to fool us.

[Chat]

"Im a prankster God - lets see who believes in me now" Bill Hicks

[quankanne]

creation happened on an April 1st?

[wuggle]

maybe dinosaurs are just the bones of 'Demons' assembled wrong ???

[Nikki Sahagin]

maybe dinosaurs are just the bones of 'Demons' assembled wrong ???

 

Oooo that would make an amazing theory! Creepy!

[Trimmer]

Perhaps Dinosaurs and evolution is the answer to how.

 

I suspect this is how it's set up: First critters are dinos, which go through a process of evolution to either go extinct or evolve to a point where they've adapted. Oh, and to give basis to Godzilla movies!

 

what the Bible says and what *really* happened appears to be two different things...

So if I'm reading you right, we need evolution as a process in order to explain how to get the bible to make sense? You'll have the veins in some people's necks and foreheads popping over that one...

Who says dinosaurs ruled the earth?

 

At the same time god created humans, he also created the remains of these "dinosaurs" to fool us.

It can be hard to tell whether statements like this one are being presented ironically, or seriously...

 

This is the oft-used comeback to objectively-based observations that don't "fit": well, since God is all-powerful, then anything you observe is something that could have been created by him to fool us. The cosmic microwave background - a phenomenon which is consistent with our understanding of physics and our belief that our observable universe was created by a "big bang" - fossilized dinosaur bones that indicate that the earth is way older than 5000 years, etc.

Makes more sense if you realize that the bible was written in simple terms that don't reflect reality because it was wholly created by ignorant bronze age nomads.

 

If you abandon your premise that god exists, you won't need to jump through mental hoops and bend your holy book to try and fit the reality we now know.

Agree. I've asked it before: is there anything in the bible that reflects any higher knowledge or philosophy than that available to the thoughtful, profound, (human) thinkers of its time? If it's a divinely delivered document for the ages, why isn't there any mention of stellar redshift, a few basic and immensely useful laws of physics (just some words on the fact that, at non-relativistic velocities, the acceleration of an oject is directly proportional to its mass and the force applied to it...) or information that would still today be really useful to the entire world: some kind of quantitative feel for the earth's petroleum reserves, and some suggestions about how to make a really good amorphous silicon solar cell - just some helpful pointers?

 

Oh, the bible is a figurative, symbolic work, you say - not to be taken that literally? It doesn't delve into specifics like that? Au contraire... it tells me about whether and how to beat my slaves, how to resolve the dilemma of an ox goring a neighbor or a slave (different procedures, depending on whether it's a slave or not...), what to do if a neighbor's donkey falls into a hole I dug... So I don't go for the idea that it's all symbolic and I shouldn't look for specifics.

 

So it seems that the same omniscient, all powerful God who put the bones into the dirt to LOOK like there were millions of years old, and who fixed the stars and the microwave background in the sky to LOOK like there had been a big bang, didn't choose to comment any further ahead in time than donkeys and slaves when he set down His Word in the one and only true document for the ages.

[Rooster_DAR]

is there anything in the bible that reflects any higher knowledge or philosophy than that available to the thoughtful, profound, (human) thinkers of its time? If it's a divinely delivered document for the ages, why isn't there any mention of stellar redshift, a few basic and immensely useful laws of physics (just some words on the fact that, at non-relativistic velocities, the acceleration of an oject is directly proportional to its mass and the force applied to it...) or information that would still today be really useful to the entire world: some kind of quantitative feel for the earth's petroleum reserves, and some suggestions about how to make a really good amorphous silicon solar cell - just some helpful pointers?

 

Oh, the bible is a figurative, symbolic work, you say - not to be taken that literally? It doesn't delve into specifics like that? Au contraire... it tells me about whether and how to beat my slaves, how to resolve the dilemma of an ox goring a neighbor or a slave (different procedures, depending on whether it's a slave or not...), what to do if a neighbor's donkey falls into a hole I dug... So I don't go for the idea that it's all symbolic and I shouldn't look for specifics.

 

So it seems that the same omniscient, all powerful God who put the bones into the dirt to LOOK like there were millions of years old, and who fixed the stars and the microwave background in the sky to LOOK like there had been a big bang, didn't choose to comment any further ahead in time than donkeys and slaves when he set down His Word in the one and only true document for the ages.

 

This is just plain poetic...very nice!

[dunstable]

If you abandon your premise that god exists, you won't need to jump through mental hoops and bend your holy book to try and fit the reality we now know.

 

I'm with Enema on this. As well as abandoning the premise of the supernatural, I would suggest to read about evolution (Dawkins, Gould, Wilson, etc.) and maybe a few modern books on philosophy - and one will get far more inspiration on how to lead one's life, and a greater appreciation of the beauty and awesomeness of the world, than through studying the myths of our ancestors.

[dunstable]

- Religion is a two sided coin; one side is that a lot of people in this world need boundaries and structure. This is where organised religion fits.

Are you saying that boundaries and structure can't be found in places other than religion? What about the humanist philosophy that spans from the ancient Greeks through the Renaissance to the present day?

 

Being part of a religion does not make you a bad person, misguided or even stupid, your actions as a human being makes you those things.

 

Religion offers moral guidance and it's generally pretty bad guidance. The bible indicates that god himself committed many atrocities and encouraged his followers to do similar on pretexts that the victims were "bad" in some way. Humanism on the other hand offers the values of equal dignity of all human beings, altruism, and a preference for freedom of action. Organized religion has historically respected none of those. So religion does tend to influence people in the wrong direction. Also, religious people waste a lot of time and money on religion (which is a belief in myths, or a delusion in other words) that could be better applied elsewhere.

[clv0116]

I might be mistaken but I'm pretty sure the Bible never claims to be a science textbook.

[dunstable]

I might be mistaken but I'm pretty sure the Bible never claims to be a science textbook.

I am sure you are right - the authors were unschooled in science and in ethics too.

[Moai]

I might be mistaken but I'm pretty sure the Bible never claims to be a science textbook.

 

For the religion to have any validity, it has to be.

 

The reason there is sin in the world is because Adam and Eve ate from the Tree Of Knowledge.

 

Jesus was crucified in order to absolve mankind from Original Sin, and all the other sins that stem from that first one.

 

If the Genesis story is false, then there is no need for Jesus. No need for Jesus, no religion. QED.

[D-Lish]

For the religion to have any validity, it has to be.

 

huh?

The Bible has to be viewed as a science textbook in order to be valid??

 

The notion of "faith" negates the need for religious doctrine to be anything but truth, doesn't it?

 

The reason there is sin in the world is because Adam and Eve ate from the Tree Of Knowledge.

 

I think it's more reasonable to assume human nature is generally a struggle with the conscience. I'm not sure who conjured up the story of a tree in an oasis in the fertile crescent.... Is Eve the reason I am cursed with a period and why we all have to wear clothes? That Eve...I shake my fist at her!

 

If the Genesis story is false, then there is no need for Jesus. No need for Jesus, no religion. QED.

 

Hmmm. Oh wait, I think I get it!! Okay, I was wrong, I don't get it.

[Trimmer]

huh?

The Bible has to be viewed as a science textbook in order to be valid??

 

The notion of "faith" negates the need for religious doctrine to be anything but truth, doesn't it?

Heck, even better, the notion of "faith" even negates the need for truth to be objectively observable or provable...

 

I usually "believe it because it's true," but under "faith", it becomes true because I believe it...

[dunstable]

huh?

The Bible has to be viewed as a science textbook in order to be valid??

 

It's not a science textbook but the valid question is why not? If god is all knowing, why did he not use the opportunity to tell people a few scientific facts that would alleviate their misery rather than talking about a limited selection of problems that were already understood at that time concerning pigs, shellfish, "leprosy of houses", etc. Why didn't he mention bacteria and the need for clean water for example? Why didn't he explain how to cultivate penicillin? Clearly these books were written by the people of the time based on their limited knowledge and not under the inspiration of an all knowing being who knew the minutiae of science and could see into the future.

The notion of "faith" negates the need for religious doctrine to be anything but truth, doesn't it.

 

How do we know that religious doctrine is truth? Because one of the doctrines is that doctrines are truth. Looks like a circular argument to me.

I think it's more reasonable to assume human nature is generally a struggle with the conscience. I'm not sure who conjured up the story of a tree in an oasis in the fertile crescent.... Is Eve the reason I am cursed with a period and why we all have to wear clothes? That Eve...I shake my fist at her!

 

I'm glad to see that you realize these are just stories - I would never have guessed that from your previous two points.

[Moai]

huh?

The Bible has to be viewed as a science textbook in order to be valid??

 

The notion of "faith" negates the need for religious doctrine to be anything but truth, doesn't it?

 

The bible must be viewed as a science textbook, but not JUST a science textbook.

 

Why do you think Fundamentalists (and even some who might be considered "moderate) believe in a 6,000 year old Earth and a literal interpretation of Genesis? Why do they want their version of events taught alongside science?

 

It's because the evidence does not support the tenets of their religion, and they know it. Ergo, if Jesus existed he was not Divine, etc.

 

I think it's more reasonable to assume human nature is generally a struggle with the conscience. I'm not sure who conjured up the story of a tree in an oasis in the fertile crescent.... Is Eve the reason I am cursed with a period and why we all have to wear clothes? That Eve...I shake my fist at her!

 

The prismatic effect of light now exists as a reminder of gpd's promise to never flood the world again. Their are grown men and women who believe that is literally true.

 

Hmmm. Oh wait, I think I get it!! Okay, I was wrong, I don't get it.

 

The problem with holy books is that they aren't internally consistent, nor do they agree with the physical evidence.

[sb129]

The prismatic effect of light now exists as a reminder of gpd's promise to never flood the world again. Their are grown men and women who believe that is literally true..

 

Sigh...

 

All that work that palaeontologists have done over the last few hundred years- just for it to be a red herring put there by god?

 

Once again, an insult to scientists and researchers everywhere- lets discredit lifetimes worth of work in one line.