01 Jun 05
Originally posted by D43M0NWhy should dinosaurs be in the Bible? The Bible is intended to provide spiritual guidance (even if you don't believe it's Inspired); not act as the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Hmm...now, I believe in Science. That's the way I am. I believe in evolution.
Now, Science has proved to me, and thousands of other people, that the species of dinosauria has existed. They died out, but they were here. Relation to Spirituallity - where are the dinosaurs in the Bible?
01 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerbut youd think some thing that ruled the earth for thousands of times more years than humanity has existed should get honorable mention.. what did they do wrong that "god" saw fit to smite there entire species.. hmm... oh them must have ben lords of sin huh..lol
Why should dinosaurs be in the Bible? The Bible is intended to provide spiritual guidance (even if you don't believe it's Inspired); not act as the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt is supposed to document life from the very begninning, when God (presumably) made the whole world. As xXxenphobe said, surely it should have some mention of a species that was around for thousands and thousands of years?
Why should dinosaurs be in the Bible? The Bible is intended to provide spiritual guidance (even if you don't believe it's Inspired); not act as the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by D43M0NNot really. This can be debated, but IMO Genesis is intended to demonstrate the moral position of man relative to other creatures and the world; not provide a paleontological history of the Earth. So I see no reason why dinosaurs or rats or spiders or oak trees should be mentioned.
It is supposed to document life from the very begninning, when God (presumably) made the whole world. As xXxenphobe said, surely it should have some mention of a species that was around for thousands and thousands of years?
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerEvery other animal is mentioned (exception of the Cat, because the eeeeeeevil Egyptians held them as false gods), so why not the first true animals?
Not really. This can be debated, but IMO Genesis is intended to demonstrate the moral position of man relative to other creatures and the world; not provide a paleontological history of the Earth. So I see no reason why dinosaurs or rats or spiders or oak trees should be mentioned.
01 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by D43M0NWhat every other animal? Maybe a handful of animals are mentioned in Genesis.
Every other animal is mentioned (exception of the Cat, because the eeeeeeevil Egyptians held them as false gods), so why not the first true animals?
In any case, dinosaurs were not the first true animals. 😀
EDIT: But seriously, why would the Bible not mentioning dinosaurs be significant?
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt isn't. It is a trivial point that will illustrate, if proven, that theology is totally insignificant to science. Nothing major.
What every other animal? Maybe a handful of animals are mentioned in Genesis.
In any case, dinosaurs were not the first true animals. 😀
EDIT: But seriously, why would the Bible not mentioning dinosaurs be significant?
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerCorrect me if I'm wrong as I don't know much about the actual stories in the Bible, but....
What every other animal? Maybe a handful of animals are mentioned in Genesis.
In any case, dinosaurs were not the first true animals. 😀
EDIT: But seriously, why would the Bible not mentioning dinosaurs be significant?
Doesn't Genesis basically go along the lines of "And ye God created the Earth for man, and then Adam and Eve, Kain and Abel, etc..." Which means man was about at the creation of the earth. So in theory, if theory the couple of million years the dinosaurs were about were after that. Therefore, we must have lived in harmony with them. I'd be suprised that there was nothing even vaguely moral or important happened to man involving the dinosaurs during those few million years.... must have been a pretty dull couple of ice ages!
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by Daemon SinSo, what you're saying is, that after Adam and Eve were around, dinosaurs were created and lived in peace? Surely they would have been mentioned if that truly happened.
Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't know much about the actual stories in the Bible, but....
Doesn't Genesis basically go along the lines of "And ye God created the Earth for man, and then Adam and Eve, Kain and Abel, etc..." Which means man was about at the creation of the earth. So in theory, if theory the couple of million years the dinosaurs we ...[text shortened]... he dinosaurs during those few million years.... must have been a pretty dull couple of ice ages!
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by Daemon SinMore than a few million years. Dinosaurs are estimated to have existed for over 125 million years, from about 190 million BC to 65 million BC.
Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't know much about the actual stories in the Bible, but....
Doesn't Genesis basically go along the lines of "And ye God created the Earth for man, and then Adam and Eve, Kain and Abel, etc..." Which means man was about at the creation of the earth. So in theory, if theory the couple of million years the dinosaurs we ...[text shortened]... he dinosaurs during those few million years.... must have been a pretty dull couple of ice ages!
Best estimates for the ago of the human species is about 5 million years; "homo sapiens sapiens", current Man, is about 100,000 years old on the evolutionary record. This means that the dinosaurs existed for over 1,000 times longer than modern Man.
Put comparatively on a 24 hour clock, dinosaurs get roughly 23 hours and 59 minutes of existence, Man gets 1 minute.
Seen from the large-scale historical perspective, Man's time on Earth is negligible, tiny blip on the radar. Earth has been a dinosaur planet, essentially. Prior to that, a planet for simple organisms.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by D43M0NIf you're talking purely about the investigation of natural laws and phenomena, then you'd be correct.
It isn't. It is a trivial point that will illustrate, if proven, that theology is totally insignificant to science. Nothing major.
If you're talking about applied science, however, you'd be wrong. Science, as a method, cannot make moral judgments on matters such as human experimentation (remember the Nazi doctors?), war (cue: the Bomb) etc. You need an independent moral system for that; moral theology offers the solution.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by Daemon SinUnless I'm mistaken, Genesis does not say that the Earth was created for man, but that man was given authority over it. Subtle difference.
Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't know much about the actual stories in the Bible, but....
Doesn't Genesis basically go along the lines of "And ye God created the Earth for man, and then Adam and Eve, Kain and Abel, etc..." Which means man was about at the creation of the earth. So in theory, if theory the couple of million years the dinosaurs we ...[text shortened]... he dinosaurs during those few million years.... must have been a pretty dull couple of ice ages!
Second, even Genesis says that man came around only on the 6th day. Reading it figuratively, it corroborates the point that man was one of the most recent additions to creation.