Hey creationists- what about dinosaurs?
436431
your question sounds less like a question and more like a rant against the people you're asking to answer it. I suppose it is crazy to think that God created dinosaurs as well as the rest of the world.  I mean, if I'm brave enough to believe God made an entire universe out of nothing, why are dinosaurs so hard to add to the equation?  \nand there are Christians who believe in the day age theory, or theistic evolution. Ancient Hebrew, which the creation story was written in, is very poetic, and can be difficult to translate exactly/literally. So when they refer to days, some scholars say a day could refer to any period of time, such as an age, one thousand years, etc.  \nand Christians aren't the only ones capable of being narrowminded. you don't sound like you accept other peoples' right to believe something different than you and still be intelligent humans. that's called hypocrisy.  I'm christian, and I respect your ability to believe something different, even if I think you're wrong. and I don't immediate assume you're stupid for doing so.  so I guess you're in the same club as the ones you criticize.
847717
It doesn't.  The dinosaurs existed millions of years before mankind. They died off around 65 million years ago.
638210
I agree with the above posters that Plate Tectonics is a theory that has achieved a broad scientific consensus, and that there is no debate about its general accuracy among geologists. But that doesn't really answer your question, does it?\n\nThe answer to your question is "yes," lots of people don't believe in Plate Tectonics, or at least don't believe in the scientific theory of plate tectonics as understood by geologists. These people are Creationists. If you believe the earth is only 5,000 years old, you can't well believe the continents spent 5 billion years drifting to their current locations. (Well, I guess you could, it's not much of a stretch compared to the rest of creationism. </editorial opinion>). \n\nSo Creationists tend to not believe the continents move at all, or to come up with alternative, Biblically consistent alternate theories to try to reconcile observable facts with their religion. They come up with things like "catastrophic plate tectonics," a non-scientific creationist theory that during Noah's flood, the continents moved 3,000 miles apart in a couple of months and then stopped.
3961
No. This is because Dinosaurs died out around 65 Million years ago. The bible refers to events in the last few thousand years. According to fundementalist christians the world was created 4000 years ago. The are even building a museum in America which shows Dinosaurs living side by side with humans. THIS IS NOT CORRECT AND IS INSANE TO BELIEVE. There was a programme on the BBC on this museum a few days ago which showed one of those big horned dinosaurs with a sadlle on which gave me a good laugh! I think their reason for the Dinosaurs not surviving the flood was that they couldn't fit on the ark, which also gave me a good laugh ;)
654006
The dinosaurs fit right in. What I don't get is how more people don't see how it fits but let me give you my humble opinion. This is not doctrine, this is one man's opinion. This is what I believe. On things of God we have a couple a sacred texts or scripture, in the oldest book about God written by the hands of prophets on stone, papyrii and what not we have accounts of the creation, in Genesis the first of even the pentetauch we are given such as slim or incomplete description that it is possible that 1 billion years could pass by as we read in a matter of one stanza. It has been said that 1 day in God's time is 1000 of our years in our reckoning. So lets take the first 6 days of the creation, or in particuliar the the 5th day after he had made some grass and light and stuff. In Gen 1:20 it say that He said" Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21. And God created great whales, and every living vreature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and Multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 32. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 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. " So that 5th day was very busy and at 1000yr /day reckoning its possible that it took 365,000 years to complete but cant know precisely yet . The beast of the earth that is referred to, also the great whales that are referred to, also refences to unicorns and all manner of beasts now extinct, isn't it possible that although not specifically mentioned that and on the 5th day about the 6th and 1/2 hour God made the T-rex and he blessed them and saw that they were ferocious. No . We only have this small wordage to assemble together the whole of creation. I dont see a problem with 17 billion year universe age and putting it into Gods plan at all. Bless you and have a pleasant tomorrow.
672165
No, Dinosaurs are not a myth.  We have thousands of specimens of fossilized dinosaur remains that indicate that these were indeed real creatures that once lived on our planet.\n\nI have no idea what a "Dimo" is, so I can't answer whether or not the 'Anatomy and Physiology of the Dimo' supports the existence of Dinosaurs, however the anatomy and physiology of archosaurs, avians, and the dinosaurs themselves certainly supports their existence.\n\nThe bone of an animal does not out weigh the flesh.  The skeleton of a 150 pound man would only weigh 10 to 15 pounds.  That comes out to at most about 10% of the weight of the flesh.\n\nWhy wouldn't the creator make carnivores before man?  The bible even says he created the animals before he created man.  Even if you believe the flawed, illogical sequence of creation put forth in the biblical account, there's no reason not to believe that dinosaurs could exist.\n\n'What flood?'  Exactly!  What flood?  There is absolutely no geological evidence that there has ever been a global, total flood that covered the entire Earth in water.  Even if there were, it has nothing to do with the existence or not of dinosaurs.\n\nDinosaurs did not kill themselves off.  The hypothesis with the widest general acceptance in the scientific community is that a massive impact with a meteor or comet at the end of the Cretaceous in conjunction with other stressors brought about the extinction of the dinosaurs.  Certainly no one has ever suggested that the dinosaurs somehow deliberately caused the meteor to crash.\n\nWhat doesn't look natural about their construction in the various re-constructions you have seen?  I have seen some that look very good, and others that look like cheap Hollywood effects (mostly because they are).  I've also seen cartoons where people are depicted with yellow skin, giant bug eyes and three fingers.  That doesn't mean that people don't exist, just that the depiction is not very accurate.  Critters like three-toed sloth, pangolins, sea cucumbers and walking sticks don't look 'natural' either, and yet they do indeed exist.  Just because a creature doesn't meet your expectations of beauty or conform to your notion of what a proper animal looks like doesn't mean they are mythical.\n\nNo one has to lie to get people to 'believe' in evolution.  People who actually look at things like physical evidence and scientific experimentation without jumping to pre-drawn conclusions based on religious dogma are almost invariably convinced of the validity of evolutionary theory.  The only lies are spread by those who refuse to accept evidence that they erroneously believe attacks their religious beliefs.\n\nMan doesn't come directly from a fish.  If you look at the morphological and anatomical similarities between a Sarcopterygian fish and an early amphibian, between an amphibian and a reptile, between a synapsid reptile and an early mammal, between an early mammal and an insectivore, between an insectivore and a prosimian lemur, between a lemur and a monkey, between a monkey and an ape, between an ape and an early hominid, between the hominid and Homo erectus and between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens, you too will see the constant, slow and gradual development of some characters and the conservative retention of other characters that indicates a long and gradual evolutionary process from fish to man.\n\nThe Big Bang theory is a whole 'nother topic, even bigger, you might want to post another question about that.  It too has little to do with the reality of dinosaur existence.\n\nMaybe the book "Jarasic Park" talks about the "myth of Dinosaurus", but the novel "Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton which was made into a series of increasingly bad films certainly does not.
622854
Dinosaurs are still the most diverse class on the planet, but we call them birds! Pretty cool huh? As an amature paleontologist I can honestly say the no professional paleontologist can honestly that any classic dinosaurs are still around. Another thing about dinos: Dinosaurs were land living animals so no dinos lived in the oceans. Sometimes fossilization is not total and some original bone is still in the fossil and sometimes it appears bleached and to the untrained eye looks fresh. Sorry, but no paleontologist has told me (I am in contact with most of them) that there is a possibility that classic dinosaurs are extant (not extinct) except for their only direct descendents - the class Aves (birds).
325078
Dinosaurs were created by a Supernatural Diety (a.k.a God) and a lot of them became extinct when the Earth became flooded almost 3000 years ago.\n\nDinsoaurs are NOT extinct; there are placed in Africa, South America, the oceans and lakes where dinosaurs still exist.
738465
Actually, dinosaurs live all over the world, and you have probably sen loads today.  They are called birds.
175862
Sadly, there are no dinosaurs left living today.  All evidence indicates that they completely died out 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period.\n\nThere is some evidence to indicate that birds are descended from one branch of the dinosaurs (not everyone agrees on this), and so in some sense it could be said that dinosaurs are not truly extinct, but that's like saying that since we're still around the Australopithecines are not extinct.  \n\nThe animals that bear the characteristic features that lead them to be classified as dinosaurs are indeed extinct.\n\nCrocodiles and alligators are somewhat related to the ancestors of the dinosaurs, but are not and never were dinosaurs themselves.  They share some of the features of the dinosaurs (teeth set in socketed roots in the jaw etc.), and are the most 'advanced' reptiles alive today, but they are not dinosaurs.\n\nThere are some who claim that creatures such as the Loch Ness Monster ('Nessie') are Plesiosaurs that somehow managed to survive for millions of years, but there is very little evidence to suggest that Nessie actually exists, and even if she did, Plesiosaurs were not Dinosaurs.  They're Plesiosaurs, a totally different lineage with considerably divergent skull morphology from the Dinosaurs.\n\nThere is a creature rumoured to exist deep in the jungles of the Congo, known as Mkele Mbembe.  Descriptions of Mkele Mbembe sound as though they might (might) be describing a small sauropod Dinosaur of some kind.  If Mkele Mbembe exists (doubtful), and it turns out that it is indeed a living Dinosaur (also doubtful) then we would have a living Dinosaur still on the planet, and we'd have to try and figure out why no Dinosaur fossils have shown up anywhere on Earth in that 65 million year span.
138564
These fossils are from when the flood took place. The water and the sudden pressure perfectly conserved these pieces of bone. We believe in dinosaurs just not evolution. Watch the videw "Answers from Genesis" this guy is excellent teacher
409502
You are right.\n\nCenturion: I hope that you only are asking this question sarcastically, in order to give an example of the silly questions that creationists ask, so nobody has to explain that obviously species take separate evolutionary paths, based on their environment, so that the same species in different environments will eventually evolve into different species.\n\nUnknown: What do you mean by a fossil of a creature turning into something else?  That doesn't really make much sense, seeing how all creatures are in the process of turning into "something else" - we just don't know what the future of evolution holds.  Haven't you heard about the recent discovery of the fossil of the "fish" which helps to provide evidence of the transition of animals from water to land?  I don't really know what you mean by saying that there are no "missing links" - there are thousands of them!  I just ahve the feeling that no number of missing links would be sufficient.  Between any two species it will always be possible ask for a "linking" fossil, and since there cannot be an infinite number of fossils, it will always be theoretically possible to say that no missing links have been found.\n\nmamcrackin: http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=12200044CLXE\nsee my comment above that no number of misssing links will ever be able to "prove" evolution.  If half-man/half-animal were found (and they have been, just look at all the fossils of the earlier human species) creationists would just ask for 3/4 man, 1/4 animal fossils, and then 7/8 man, 1/8 animal, and so on.  \n\nindiebaptist: Her point is that while there would be fish fossils evenly dispersed throughout the layers of earth, non-aquatic animals would be clumped in one layer - the layer during which the flood occurred.  This is not what we find when looking at the fossils in the layers of earth.  The great flood was also gods way of killing a lot of animals who had done nothing to deserve that punishment. by the way, hovind's PhD (from a non accredited school) is in christian education, not biology or any other science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind  \nI really have to wonder where you are getting your facts from.  Darwin wasn't a lawyer, and even if he was, you are citing the work of someone trained in christian education, not science in order to support your belief.  How is that any better?  In any case, Darwin was formally trained to be a clergyman, but studied a lot of the natural sciences on the side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin\nRegardless of darwin's training, his theories must stand on their own merit, as his has done, and not on the credentials of their creator.
542946
sure they were, this is clear because of the evidence we've got from geology. the bones we've found don't lie. but something you should notice, and that is dinosaurs were not all huge wild animals, they were just a kind of animals, including all sizes and all behaviours. also it is believed that some of the animals living nowadays are the children of ancient dinasaurs.
168592
Evolution - massive evidence.\n\nCreation - only has (incorrect) snipes at evolution, no physical evidence in it's favor.\n\nPeople interested in this question should check out the Index to Creationist Claims, which lists all know allegations that Creationists have made about evolution and why they are wrong.\n\nCreationist Claims are often built on a misunderstanding of science (the "2nd law of thermo says evo wrong", "there are no transitional fossils") or have picked up a single outdated study and ignored all more recent evidence (the "dust on moon means moon is young") or just invent their own science - with no evidence - to explain away the obvious (the "micro- vs macroevolution" bit).\n\nIt is also worth pointing out that Creationists always try to poke holes in evolution. Even if they were correct and our current understanding of evolution were wrong *that doesn't mean creationism is right*. There needs to be POSITIVE evidence - PHYSICAL evidence - in favor of Creationist ideas. And their just isn't anything. All they have are cheap shots against evolution.\n\n\nDon't get my wrong, if someone wants to believe in creationism, a 6,000 year old Earth, or the Earth is flat, that is perfectly fine with me. Its a free country. But don't come telling me these things are science unless you have scientific proof - physical evidence in favor of your theory.\n\nCheck it out!\n\n\nPostscipt - another common difficulty, a failure to understand the meaning of "theory" in science as oppsed to colloquial language. There is also the "germ theory" and Newton's "theory of gravity." So, are you skeptical of bacteria and gravity because they are "just a theory?"
663454
Most dinosaurs are extinct. The rest just got smaller & more adaptable. All reptiles are descendants from dinosaurs. Crocodiles, Alligators, lizards, snakes, turtles, tortoises, Komodo Dragons are "living" dinosaurs.\nNot counting the stuff that lives in interior (unexplored) africa and the amazon rain forest, and the loch ness monster, which is a pleiosaur or something.\n\nDinosaurs died out a while back. A huge meteor smacked into earth- you can see the impact crater from the hit in Arizona or Russia- the evidence is that earth takes a world-killer on the chin once every 10,000 years or so- which means we're about due for another one. \nThe meteor impact threw up a huge amount of ash and dirt- like when a volcano blows, or after an atomic weapon is used, and blocked out the sun's heat from earth, what they call "nuclear winter". The earth cooled and went into an ice age until all the dust and ash had settled back down from the atmosphere. Since reptiles & dinosaurs & dragons are all cold blooded, they went into hibernation and most died off. Only the smallest and most adaptable survived.\n\nIf it hadn't been for this, mammals would never have evolved into higher life forms, because we kept getting eaten by dinosaurs and dragons.
1042491
so many of those answers just make me want to cry!\nthe bible does not mention dinosaurs so they did not exist?!?!?\nlets just ignore facts and all those fossils!\n\nIt is insanity!
408149
No one knows if dinosaurs existed, what we know is that fossils of dinosaur bones exist.  The sensible explanation is that dinosaurs did exist and their bones became fossils, but why do you care about what is sensible?  According to the bible the earth was created in 6 days, that is wrong to.  The only time the bible is right is by accident.  Snakes use to talk in the bible.  You have to admit the bible leaves a lot out.  Like if Adam and Eve had 2 sons, and no daughters, where did Cain and Abel's wives come from?