Just because the bible doesn’t mention dinosaurs per se, means nothing.
It doesn’t mention republicans either.
What woudl happen if dinosaurs were aroudn right now?
Would they kill us all or would we destroy them?
I think I was looking for an answer to my original question that would change my mind, but as much as I appreciate people’s interpretation’s of the bible I still believe it is a great man’s fictional thoughts.
Dinosaurs were once longtime roamers of our planet - Proof=FACT.
Not one major mention in the book of genesis of such creatures=FACT=should be renamed Book of Bollocks.
I also believe Jesus was on the earth, but don’t believe he was the son of god, but believe he had followers who told tales of turning water into wine, etc. He was nothing more than a man wanting respect and power, which he gained eternally.
This is my opinion, please respect it as I respect yours.
That’s actually a rather interesting question.
I’d think if they were around, humans would never have had the chance to evolve from Lucy.
I think we would never of got to the stage we are at now, but if we imagined we did, then there would be island divides, ie humans in the USA/UK, dino’s in Australia. Then we’d send nuclear bombs over to wipe out australia. No more dino’s
Okay, then I consider you to be a load of bollocks with a complete bollock-brain. I give you as much respect as you have given Scripture.
Thank you Dogface I respect your opinion, but must state it means nada to me
Cockroaches were once, and are still, longtime roamers of our planet - Proof=FACT
Not one major mention in the book of genesis of such creatures=FACT=should be renamed Book of Bollocks
Rats were onec, and are still, longtime roamers of our planet - Proof=FACT
Not one major mention in the book of genesis of such creatures=FACT=should be renamed Book of Bollocks
Passenger pigeons were once longtime roamers of our planet - Proof=FACT
Not one major mention in the book of genesis of such creatures=FACT=should be renamed Book of Bollocks
See how silly that was? That’s how you’re coming across. Regardless of the truth of things, I don’t see how you cam to the conclusion that Genesis is bollocks solely based on the fact that it doesn’t mention a particular type of animal.
The Paluxy River “man tracks” myth was thoroughly refuted by Glen Kuban (lots of details).
Could it be that your priest was just having a bad day and was sick of the same wiseassed questions out of obnoxious thirteen year old boys who all think they’re the first ones to ask them? Did he REALLY ask you to leave the church or did you just take it that way?
He really asked me to leave, but had a tendancy to fall asleep and he knew my catholic parents were forcing me to go as they were at that age.
I reckon once you die, there is nothing else, hence why Im havin fun now!!!
That may have been the original objection posed to the short-fused priest, way back when, but I don’t think anybody’s claiming that the simple omission of one kind of animal constitutes much of a “smoking gun against biblical inerrency.”
However, one is left to wonder, WHY the authors of the bible, having, umm… lived among the dinosaurs…:rolleyes: somehow failed to document their existence. After all-- this isn’t some cockroach we’re talking about, here… one would think that the Apatosaurus, making the earth tremble with it’s very footsteps, might have rated a mention. Don’t wave those “biblical dinosaur references” around, either-- those clearly don’t match up at all with what the reality of dinosaurs was; it’s just a desperate post-facto attempt to reconcile the biblical record with what we now know to be true. The descriptions of dinosaurs, if anyone alive had been around to see them, would have been “no-doubters”… but they are conspicuously absent.
And the reason is a simple one:
The men writing the bible – and generations of men who followed them-- didn’t know at the time that dinosaurs had ever existed. Until paleontologists uncovered them, they were “out of sight and out of mind.”
This same ignorance, and severely limited frame of reference, led the bible’s writers into all kinds of similar “traps,” such as the fairy tale of Noah’s Ark. Sure, it was easy to envision two of every animal that they knew about at the time, given their relative isolation, in the Middle East, being sheparded into a big boat. They had never seen, and were unaware of the existence of:
Polar bears. Moose. Penguins. Kangaroos. Leaf-cutter ants. The story falls together pretty nicely when all you have to account for is the indigenous wildlife and domesticated animals within their frame of reference. Let’s see- goats, check. Sheep, check. A few more thrown in, of course, but the bible’s writer’s had no way of knowing the logic fault they were building into their little fable: are we to believe that Noah led two Tyrannosaurs up the gangplank? Was it hard to get two apatosaurs into their assigned pens? How much did the saltwater tanks accomodating the pleisiosaurs weigh? Who fed Mr. and Mrs. Allosaurus-- and from what food source?
After all-- if two of every animal made it onto the ark, we must include ALL animals, even the ones that aren’t “convenient” in reconciling the story.
We must include the logic problem of accounting for the very placement of those dinosaurs who became fossils. After all, as creationists claim, the fossil record as it exists is a result of the global flood… “evidence” of it, so to speak. Now, why all the dinosaurs who died in the flood managed to sink all the way down into the bottom layer, through layer after layer of rock that signifies billions of years, while all the other animals who died in the flood, at the same time, rose to the tippy-top of those layers, is beyond the limited scope of my imagination.
Guess I wouldn’t make a very good Christian.
Any of you apologists have a handy answer for these questions ?
There are lots of relephants in the Bible!
And it’s just crawling with contradictybites…
Ahh, Meatros, but I never said that my interpretation was right. The interpretations stated there were merely stupid examples.
My point was that declaring any interpretation (specifically, one made to fit with the interpreter’s beliefs by declaring certain passages metaphor and poetry) the word of God is pretty silly, IMO.
Actually, NightUK, it’s believed to have been written by many people (unless you buy that Moses wrote the whole thing). There were 5 very interesting Straight Dope staff reports called Who Wrote the Bible? That’s a link to the first one. They’re very detailed, and I’m sure someone asking the questions you are would be interested in reading them.
Yes, its just the disregardable fact that they existed millions of years ago that separates dinosaurs from sheep.
They are absolutely not mentionable.
:smack:
I don’t see your point there, alterego…Personally, I don’t care that dinos aren’t mentioned. It means nothing to me. I don’t expect what means nothing to me to have any convincing effect on anyone else, nor am I trying to convince anyone.
cervaise and latro:
You’re just full of chuckles!
Moderator’s Note: Dogface, you’ve crossed the line at least twice in the last two days with insults in Great Debates.
You need to cool it right now, or you won’t be posting on the SDMB anymore.
I must say, in my opinion, that some of these arguments people are using, are very illogical. People keep claiming that the Genesis account should be discredited because it never mentions dinosaurs. As a Christian, I’d like to respond in saying that the point of the Bible was not to create zoology book. If this were the case, you’d have a point. But this isn’t the case. The point of the Bible is to give God’s will to mankind. And dinosaurs have nothing to do with this. From the Christian viewpoint, the authors of the Bible didn’t just walk around recording whatever they felt like writing about, it was inspiration that directly related to God’s will. Again, the point of the Bible is not to be a science textbook, as some of you seem to be asserting.
Tell that to the (minority of) Christians who say otherwise, to whom this thread is (I assume) addressed.