- NEW!
by jalex137 on September 20th, 2005
It is a common mis-apprehension or even mis-representation of the Biblical creationist position that we reject science. What we reject is non-empirical speculation masquerading as science. The Biblical account has no problem with the existence of dinosaurs. We do not discount the fossils. We do question the time scale and scenario proposed for them. The fossils exist in the present, are dug up in the present, and are studied in the present. What one believes about how they got there and when will be drawn according to his/her assumptions about what has gone on in the unobservable, unrepeatable (that is, non-empirical) past. In fact, the recent discovery of soft tissue in a fossilized bone is more consistent with an age of a few thousand years, than with tens or hundreds of millions of years. The explanation that "apparently soft tissue can survive much longer than we ever imagined" is inconsistent with the scientific evidence regarding its durability. The natural or plain understanding of the Biblical account of creation would have dinosaurs created with the other land and sea animals. They then would have co-existed with humans, and would have been preserved on the ark by Noah--no need to take full grown adults, juveniles would suffice. The climatic and environmental changes following the flood would have made survival difficult for them and some other animals, so that they became increasingly rare, finally extinct. I think we can look to the descriptions of dragons in ancient legends for evidence that men encountered dinosaurs in the flesh before they encountered them as fossils. That the Bible doesn't mention them specifically simply indicates that they weren't a factor in the lives of the people of that time and place. It doesn't mention kangaroos, either--they weren't relevant. It is possible the Behemoth and Leviathan mentioned in the book of Job--which seems to be from a time a few hundred years following the flood--are describing a land and a sea creature we would think of as dinosaurs. The descriptions do not match well with any living creatures of our day.
For lots more on this subject, see the FAQ page on dinosaurs at Answers in Genesis: http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp
BaaBaaBlackSheep (without implying that he means to be agreeing with or supporting me) makes an interesting and useful point. Facts, and to an only slightly lesser extent experimental or empirical scientific theories, do not "speak for themselves". They must be interpreted in some larger framework. Although a bit outside the scope of this question, that's where the evolution-creation debate sticks. Naturalistic evolution, Biblical young-earth creationism, and everything in between, are, in my mind, more properly paradigms than theories. That is, they supply a framework of philosophy and untestable assumptions which are taken on faith, by which the empirical science can be interpreted and organized.
How do I add my site to Deliverance Ministries?
by Answerbag Staff on August 16th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What is the meaning of Bishop Jugis'coat of arms?
by Answerbag Staff on August 7th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Who was St. Catherine of Siena?
by Answerbag Staff on August 2nd, 2010
| 1 person likes this
If someone comes to your door to try and sell their religion to you, do you shut the door in their face or go to the toilet? Or both?
by Kenz the Frenz on February 6th, 2012
| 4 people like this
What's the difference between a belief and an opinion? Is a "non-belief" an opinion too?
by Marky Mark on February 5th, 2012
| 3 people like this
You're reading Do born again Christians believe that dinosaurs once existed?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Even though the content of the answer is really stupid, it definitely answers the question.
by Lucas_ on September 21st, 2005
About your statement that creationists are misrepresented as rejecting science, that's not a misrepresentation, it's true.
by ImNotLikeYou on November 5th, 2005
Empirical science is almost entirely objectional. You can claim almost anything with it and no one could say that it's wrong.
by BaaBaaBlackSheep on December 5th, 2005
this explains your beliefs, so partial credit, but yikes, I wish you knew more about how science works.
by lynnenorth on February 15th, 2006
The 'soft' tissue was fossilized. It is not still 'soft' as you imply.
by science_geek on March 31st, 2006
When citing scientific observations (such as your "soft tissue"), try to refer to a scientific source and not a religious one. If such a thing does not exist, don't call it science. "Answers in Genesis" is bunk. Try talkorigins.com
by lizvelrene on July 27th, 2006
"I think we can look to the descriptions of dragons in ancient legends for evidence that men encountered dinosaurs in the flesh before they encountered them as fossils"... Are you actually kidding me?
by Blacknail on July 15th, 2009
"and would have been preserved on the ark by Noah--no need to take full grown adults, juveniles would suffice"
this does make sense. the space saved by the smaller, juvenile dinosaur would provide sufficient space for EVERY single species of life on our entire planet to fit on an ark. makes total sense.
by nza on April 18th, 2010
I enjoyed reading this. Any suggestions for child resources that are Christian-minded? I would really appreciate any direction. Also, It's sad that everyone is entitled to a belief system until it is a Christian one, then you get called retarded.
by nannyjen on April 22nd, 2010
Jalex137 and nannyjen, good on you! I totally agree with you both! The point is that whether or not dinosaurs existed and whether or not science is mostly hypothetical and as flawed as mankind is(which it is) Christ was born, Christ died and Christ was resurrected and at the right hand of the Father. They are deaf, dumb and blind. Pity them. Don't be discouraged. God bless!
by Audra_T on November 15th, 2010